Enthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United States

JAMA

Volumn 291, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 71-78

  Schwartz, Lisa M ^a,b,c   Woloshin, Steven ^a,b,c   Fowler, Floyd J ^d   Welch, H Gilbert ^a,b  

^a VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c NORRIS COTTON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; COLON CANCER; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIFESPAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PUBLIC HEALTH; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

EID: 0345967846     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.1.71     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Kramer B, Brawley O. Cancer screening. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000;14:831-848.
2. Black W. Overdiagnosis: an underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1280-1282.
3. National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement. Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute; 1997.
4. Fletcher SW. Whither scientific deliberation in health policy recommendations? Alice in the wonderland of breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1180-1183.
5. Ransohoff D, Harris R. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate? Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:1029-1034.
6. Olsen O, Gotzsche P. Cochrane review on screening mammography for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet. 2001;358;340-1342.
7. Gotzsche P, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet. 2000;355:129-134.
8. American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society issues new cervical cancer early detection guidelines for 2002. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/ MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Issues_ New_Cervical_Cancer_Early_Detection_Guidelines.aspAccessed May 9, 2003.
9. Cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/cervcan/cervcanrr.htm. Accessed April 1, 2003, 2003
10. Frame P. Routine screening for lung cancer? maybe someday, but not yet. JAMA. 2000;284:1980-1983.
11. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Risk communication in clinical practice: putting cancer in context. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;25:124-133.
12. Welch H. Informed choice in cancer screening. JAMA. 2001;285:2776-2778.
13. Linnan L, Kim A, Wasilewski Y, Lee A, Yang J, Solomon F. Working with licensed cosmetologists to promote health: results from the North Carolina BEAUTY and Health Pilot Study. Prev Med. 2001;33:606-612.
14. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. The US Postal Service and cancer screening: stamps of approval? N Engl J Med. 1999;340:884-887.
15. Lee T, Brennan T. Direct-to-consumer marketing of high-technology screening tests. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:529-531.
16. Gollust S, Hull SC, Wilford B. Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA. 2002;288:1762-1767.
17. American Association of Public Opinion Reserach. Standards and best practices. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?page=survey_methods/ standards_and_best_practices/standard_definitions. Accessed February 7, 2003.
18. Ruggles S, Sobek M. Census 2000 data: integrated public use microdata series: version 2.0. Minneapolis: Historical Census Projects, University of Minnesota; 1997. Available at: http://www.ipums.org. Accessed February 7, 2003.
19. Center for Disease Control and Prevention Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Overview 2002. Atlanta, Ga: US Dept of Health and Human Services, 2002. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/surveydata/2001/overview_0.rtf. Accessed October 28, 2002.
20. US Food and Drug Administration. Whole-body scanning using computed tomography (CT). Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/index.html. Accessed May 8, 2003.
21. American College of Radiology. ACR statement on CT screening exams. Available at: //http://www.acr.org/departments/pub_rel/press_releases /total-bodyCT.html. Accessed May 8, 2003.
22. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. CT body scanning not scientifically justified for asymptomatic patients. Available at: http://www.aapm.org/announcements/CT.html. Accessed May 8, 2003.
23. Kolata G. Cheaper body scans spread, despite doubts. New York Times. May 27, 2002:A1.
24. Hass N. Scared sick: the $900 antidote. New York Times. August 26, 2001:Sect 9, 1.
25. Brody J. How perils can await the "worried wealthy." New York Times. November 12, 2002:F7.
26. US Census Bureau, Administrative and Customer Services Division. Statistical abstracts of the United States: table 1103: utilization of selected media. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/infocom.pdf. Accessed May 9, 2003.
27. Lerner B. The Breast Cancer Wars. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001.
28. Black W, Welch H. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1237-1243.
29. Ransohoff D, McNaughton M, Fowler F. Why is prostate cancer screening so common when evidence is so uncertain? a system without negative feedback. Am J Med. 2002;113:663-667.
30. Wolfe S. Direct-to-consumer advertising-education of emotion promotion? N Engl J Med. 2002;346:524-526.
31. 21 CFR §202.1.