CT screening: Who benefits and who pays

Radiology

Volumn 228, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 26-28

  Hillman, Bruce J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Editorials

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SCREENING; WHOLE BODY COUNTING;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 0037700195     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2281021733     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Casarella WJ. A patient's viewpoint on a current controversy (letter). Radiology 2002; 224:927.
2. Casola G, Furtado CD, Stamato S, Lee P, Dang D. Whole body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations (abstr). Radiology 2002; 225(P):317.
3. Sone S, Li F, Yang YZ, et al. Characteristics of small lung cancers invisible on conventional chest radiography and detected by population based screening using spiral CT. Br J Radiol 2000; 73:137-145.
4. Henschke CI, McCauley DE, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999; 354:99-105.
5. Motohiro A, Ueda H, Komatsu H, Yanai N, Mori T. Prognosis of non-surgically treated. clinical stage 1 lung cancer patients in Japan. Lung Cancer 2002; 36:65-69.
6. Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Hartman TE, et al. Lung cancer screening with CT: Mayo Clinic experience. Radiology 2003; 226:756-761.