The screening debates: Time for a broader approach?

European Journal of Cancer

Volumn 39, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 1807-1809

  Thornton, H ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b Saionara   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LETTER; MAMMOGRAPHY; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH;

EID: 0042347725     PISSN: 09598049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00867-5     Document Type: Letter

References (32)

1. Morris J.K. Editorial. screening for neuroblastoma in children. Screening does not reduce mortality from neuroblatoma J. Med. Screen. 9:2002;56.
2. Chapple A, Ziebland S, Shepperd S, Miller R, Herxheimer A, McPherson A. Why men with prostate cancer want wider access to prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing: qualitative study. Br. Med. J. 2002, 325, 737-739.
3. Spurgeon D. Annual mammography in women in their 40s does not cut death rate. Br. Med. J. 325:2002;563.
4. Miller A.B., Baines C.J., Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1. breast cancer mortality after 11-16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40-49 years Ann. Intern. Med. 137:2002;305.
5. Goodman SN. The mammogrpahy dilemma: a crisis for evidence-based medicine? Ann Intern Med 2002, 137, 363-364. Koning HJ, Coebergh JWW, van Dongen JA. Current controversies in cancer: is mass screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Eur J Cancer 1996, 32A, 1835-1844.
6. Goodman SN. The mammogrpahy dilemma: a crisis for evidence-based medicine? Ann Intern Med 2002, 137, 363-364. Koning HJ, Coebergh JWW, van Dongen JA. Current controversies in cancer: is mass screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Eur J Cancer 1996, 32A, 1835-1844.
7. Lenzer J. The operation was a success (but the patient died). How media spin distorted the outcomes of a study comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting. Br. Med. J. 325:2002;664.
8. Napoli M, Schiff H. Survey of U.S. media coverage of the review of mammography trials. an opportunity to educate consumers about the risks of detecting ductal carcinoma in situ? Poster presentation for the 10th Cochrane Colloquium, Stavanger, Norway, 31 July-3 August 2002.
9. Summaries for patients: Mammograms in women age 40-49: results of The Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Study. Ann Intern Med (http://www.annals.org/issues/v137n5/nts/20029030-00001.html) accessed 18/09/02.
10. Thornton, H. Letter posted on British Medical Journal website (bmj.com). 19 September 2002. Mammographic screening: "the whole truth and nothing but the truth!" - please! ( http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7364/563/a#25626 ).
11. Lawrence J. Does screening really save lives? The Independent. The Wednesday Review, 7 November 2001, 8.
12. Peres J. Study says mammograms offer little to those in 40s. Chicago Tribune 3 September 2002.
13. Brownlee S, Brewis K. For every woman saved by breast-cancer screening, thousands will have to undergo painful, traumatic, even dangerous treatments they might never have needed. Is mammography the best way to save lives? Sunday Times Magazine. 7 July 2002.
14. Koning H.J., Coebergh J.W.W., van Dongen J.A. Current controversies in cancer. is mass screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Eur J. Cancer. 32A:1996;1835-1844.
15. Blanks R.G., Moss S.M., McGahan C.E., Quinn M., Babb P.J. Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales, 1990-8. comparison of observed with predicted mortality Br. Med. J. 321:2000;665-669.
16. Nystrom L. How effective is screening for breast cancer? Reductions in mortality should not be the only marker of success. Br. Med. J. 321:2000;647-648.
17. Levi F., Lucchini F., Negri E., La Vecchia C. The fall in breast cancer mortality in Europe. Eur. J. Cancer. 37:2001;1409-1412.
18. Peto R., Boreham J., Clarke M., Davies C., Beral V. UK and USA breast cancer deaths down 25% in year 2000 at ages 20-69 years. Lancet. 355:2000;1822.
19. Peto R. A European overview of breast cancer. Europa Donna U.K. Forum First Annual Lecture, House of Commons, London, UK, 5 November 2001.
20. Sox H. Screening mammography for younger women. back to basics Ann. Intern. Med. 2002;362.
21. Humphrey L.H., Helfand M., Chan B.K.S., Woolf S.H. Breast cancer screening. a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann. Intern. Med. 137:2002;347-360.
22. Girgis S.T., Thomson C., Ward J. The courts expect the impossible" medico-legal issues as perceived by New South Wales general practitioners J. Law Med. 7:2000;273-280.
23. Thornton H. Consequences of screening. Lancet. 356:2000;1033.
24. Thornton H. Information and involvement. Health Expectations. 4:2001;71-74.
25. Olsen O, Goetzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet website 20 October 2001 ( www.thelancet.com ).
26. Olsen O., Goetzsche P. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 358:2001;1340-1342.
27. Horton R. Screening mammography - an overview revisited. Lancet. 358:2001;1284-1285.
28. Duffy S.W. Interpretation of the breast screening trials. a commentary on the recent paper by Goetzsche and Olsen The Breast. 10:2001;209-212.
29. Ciatto S., Zappa R., Bonardi G., Gervasi G. Prostate cancer screening. the problem of overdiagnosis and lessons to be learned from breast screening Eur. J. Cancer. 36:2000;1347-1350.
30. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/prostate/index.html.
31. Thornton H, Dixon-Woods M. Prostate specific antigen testing for prostate cancer. Engaging with the public may address their concerns and produce workable solutions. Br Med J 2002, 325, 725-726.
32. Refractory. Uncertainty. Lancet 2001, 358, 2090.