Concepts and Controversies in Cancer Screening

American Journal of Cancer

Volumn 2, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 395-402

  Gates, Thomas J ^a  

^a LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PREVENTION; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLON CANCER; COLONOSCOPY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEAD TIME BIAS; LENGTH TIME BIAS; LUNG CANCER; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; OCCULT BLOOD; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SCREENING TEST; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; SPUTUM CYTODIAGNOSIS; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0742288361     PISSN: 11756357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00024669-200302060-00002     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Wallace RB. Screening for early and asymptomatic conditions. In: Wallace RB, editor. Public health and preventive medicine. 14th ed. Norwalk (CT): Appleton and Lange, 1998: 907-8
2. Gates TJ. Screening for cancer: evaluating the evidence. Am Fam Physician 2001; 63: 513-22
3. Marshall KG. The ethics of informed consent for preventive screening programs. CMAJ 1996; 155: 377-82
4. Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, et al. Clinical epidemiology: a basic science for clinical medicine. 2nd ed. Boston (MA): Little, Brown, and Company, 1991: 153-70
5. Malm HM. Medical screening and the value of early detection: when unwarranted faith leads to unethical recommendations. Hastings Cent Rep 1999; 29: 26-37
6. Doukas DJ, Fetters M, Ruffin MT, et al. Ethical considerations in the provision of controversial screening tests. Arch Fam Med 1997; 6: 486-90
7. Black WC. Overdiagnosis: an underrecognized cause of confusion and harm in cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1280-2
8. Frame PS, Carlson SJ. A critical review of periodic health screening using specific screening criteria. J Fam Pract 1975; 2: 29-35
9. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The periodic health examination. CMAJ 1979; 121: 1194-254
10. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1989
11. Mulley AG. Health maintenance and the role of screening. In: Goroll AH and Mulley AG. Primary Care Medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2000: 14-7
12. Patz EF, Goodman PC, Bepler G. Screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1627-33
13. Black WC, Haggstrom DA, Welch HG. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 167-73
14. Taber L, Duffy SW, Yen M, et al. All-cause mortality among breast cancer patients in a screening trial: support for breast cancer mortality as an end point. J Med Screen 2002; 9: 159-62
15. Juffs HG, Tannock IF. Screening trials are even more difficult than we thought they were. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 156-7
16. Marshall KG. Influence of reporting methods on perception of benefits. CMAJ 1996; 154: 1493-9
17. Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310: 452-4
18. Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ 1998; 317: 307-12
19. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Baltimore (MD): Williams and Wilkins, 1996
20. Agency for Healthcare Research and Technology. US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ uspstfix.htm [Accessed 2003 Nov 3]
21. National Cancer Institute. Cancer screening overview [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/screening/overview [Accessed 2003 Nov 3]
22. Greenlee RT, Hill-Harmon MB, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51: 15-36
23. Collins MM, Barry MJ. Controversies in prostate cancer screening: analogies to the early lung cancer screening debate. JAMA 1996; 276: 1976-9
24. Manser RL, Irving LB, Stone C, et al. Screening for lung cancer (Cochrane Review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 2002
25. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early lung cancer action project: overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 1999; 354: 99-105
26. Henschke CI, Naidich DP, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early lung cancer action project: initial findings on repeat screenings. Cancer 2001; 92: 153-9
27. Aberle DR, Gamsu G, Henschke CI, et al. A consensus statement of the Society of Thoracic Radiology: screening for lung cancer with helical computed tomography. J Thorac Imaging 2001; 16: 65-8
28. Towler BP, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult (Cochrane Review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002
29. Fletcher RH. Commentary on "Fecal occult blood test screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality". ACP J Club 1999; 130: 13. Comment on Towler BP, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult (Cochrane Review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002
30. Fletcher RH. Commentary on "Fecal occult blood test screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality". ACP J Club 1999; 130: 13. Comment on Towler BP, Irwig L, Glasziou P, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult (Cochrane Review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002
31. Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 573-84
32. Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA 2000; 284: 1954-61
33. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG. One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 555-60
34. UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial Investigators. Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre randomized trial. Lancet 2002; 359: 1291-300
35. Yee J, Akerkar GA, Hung RK, et al. Colorectal neoplasia: performance characteristics of CT colonography for detection in 300 patients. Radiology 2001; 219: 685-92
36. Traverso G, Shuber A, Levin B, et al. Detection of APC mutations in fecal DNA from patients with colorectal tumors. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 311-20
37. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendations and rationale [online]. Available from URL: http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov. [Accessed 2002 Nov 5]
38. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 273: 149-54
39. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355: 129-34
40. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane Review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358: 1340-2
41. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography (Cochrane Review). Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2001
42. de Koning HJ. Assessment of nationwide cancer-screening programmes. Lancet 2000; 355: 80-1
43. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 2002; 359: 909-19
44. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, et al. Canadian national breast screening study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1490-9
45. Charatan F. US panel finds insufficient evidence to support mammography. BMJ 2002; 324: 255
46. Physician Data Query, National Cancer Institute. Screening for breast cancer [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/screening/breast/healthprofessional/ [Accessed 2002 Feb 26]
47. National Cancer Institute Press Office. NCI statement of mammography screening [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cancer.gov. [Accessed 2002 Feb 21]
48. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale [online]. Available from URL: http: //www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov [Accessed 2002 Sep 9]
49. Goodman SN. The mammography dilemma: a crisis for evidence-based medicine? Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 363-4
50. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1089-96
51. Baxter N. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Preventive health care, 2001 update: should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer? CMAJ 2001; 164: 1837-46
52. Peto R, Boreham J, Clarke M, et al. UK and USA breast cancer deaths down 25% in year 2000 at ages 20-69 years [letter]. Lancet 2000; 355: 1822
53. Slawson D. Commentary on "Do therapeutic recommendations for prostate cancer differ depending on the type of specialist consulted?" Evidence-Based Practice 2000; 3 (10): 8. Comment on Fowler FJ, Collins MN, Albersen PC, et al. Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2000; 283: 3217-22
54. Slawson D. Commentary on "Do therapeutic recommendations for prostate cancer differ depending on the type of specialist consulted?" Evidence-Based Practice 2000; 3 (10): 8. Comment on Fowler FJ, Collins MN, Albersen PC, et al. Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2000; 283: 3217-22
55. Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52: 23-47
56. Tarone RE, Chu KC, Brawley OW. Implications of stage-specific survival rates in assessing recent declines in prostate cancer mortality rates. Epidemiology 2000; 11: 167-70
57. Stephenson RA. Prostate cancer trends in the era of prostate-specific antigen: an update of incidence, mortality, and clinical factors from the SEER database. Urol Clin North Am 2002; 29: 173-81
58. Lu-Yao G, Albertsen PC, Stanford JL, et al. Natural experiment examining impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut. BMJ 2002; 325: 740-5
59. Frosch DL, Kaplan RM, Felitti V. Evaluation of two methods to facilitate shared decision making for men considering the prostate-specific antigen test. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 391-8
60. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 915-6
61. Harris R, Lohr K. Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 917-29