Screening trials are even more difficult than we thought they were

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 94, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 156-157

  Juffs, Helen G ^a   Tannock, Ian F ^a  

^a PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALPHA TOCOPHEROL; RALOXIFENE; SELENIUM; TAMOXIFEN;

AGED; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EDITORIAL; ENDOMETRIUM CANCER; FEMALE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; META ANALYSIS; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; THROMBOEMBOLISM;

EID: 0037028752     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/94.3.156     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening
2. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?
3. Analysis of mammography trials renews debate on mortality reduction
4. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years
5. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials
6. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study