Health and economic benefits of well-designed evaluations: Some lessons from evaluating neuroblastoma screening

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 97, Issue 15, 2005, Pages 1118-1124

  Soderstrom, Lee ^a   Woods, Wlliam G ^b   Bernstein, Mark ^c   Robison, Leslie L ^d   Tuchman, Mendel ^e   Lemieux, Bernard ^f  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b CHILDREN'S HEALTHCARE OF ATLANTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f CENTRE HOSPITALIER UNIVERSITAIRE DE SHERBROOKE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; NEUROBLASTOMA; NEWBORN; NEWBORN SCREENING; NORTH AMERICA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK REDUCTION; UNITED STATES; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION; INCIDENCE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; MORTALITY;

CANADA; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; EVALUATION STUDIES; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; INFANT, NEWBORN; MASS SCREENING; NEUROBLASTOMA; ONTARIO; QUEBEC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 23244441092     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: 14602105     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dji203     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bernstein ML, Leclerc JM, Bunin G, Brisson L, Robison L, Shuster J, et al. A population-based study of neuroblastoma incidence, survival and mortality in North America. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:323-9.
2. Sawada T, Nakata T, Takasugi N, Maeda K, Hanawa Y, Shimizu K, et al. Mass screening for neuroblastoma in infants in Japan. Lancet 1984;ii:271-3.
3. Nishi M, Miyake H, Takeda T, Simada M, Takasugi N, Sato Y, et al. Effects of the mass screening for neuroblastoma in Sapporo City. Cancer 1987;60:433-6.
4. Tsubono Y, Hisamichi S. A halt to neuroblastoma screening in Japan. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2010-1.
5. Gellis SS. Isn't it time for mass screening of infants for neuroblastoma? Pediatric Notes 1990;14:39.
6. Scriver CR, Gregory D, Bernstein ML, Clow CL, Weisdorf T, Dougherty GE, et al. Feasibility of chemical screening of urine for neuroblastoma case fining in infancy in Quebec. Can Med Assoc J 1987;136:952-6.
7. Woods WG, Tuchman M. Neuroblastoma: The case for screening infants in North America. Pediatrics 1987;79:869-73.
8. Tuchman M, Lemieux B, Woods WG. Screening for neuroblastoma in infants: investigate or implement? Pediatrics 1990;86:791-3.
9. Tuchman M, Lemieux B, Auray-Blais C, Robison LL, Giguere R, McCann MT, et al. Screening for neuroblastoma at three weeks of age: Methods and preliminary results from the Quebec Neuroblastoma Screening Project. Pediatrics 1990;86:765-73.
10. Woods WG, Tuchman M, Robison LL, Bernstein M, Leclerc JM, Brisson LC, et al. A population-based study of the usefulness of screening for neuroblastoma. Lancet 1996;348:1682-7.
11. Woods WG, Gao RN, Shuster JJ, Robison LL, Bernstein M, Weitzman S. et al. Screening of infants and mortality due to neuroblastoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1041-6.
12. Schilling FH, Spix C, Berthold F, Erttmann R, Fehse N, Hero B. et al. Neuroblastoma screening at one year of age. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1047-55.
13. Gouvernement du Quebec. Liste de medicaments 3. Quebec: Regie de l'assurance-maladie du Quebec; April 1998:429. [French.]
14. Evans A E, D'Angio GJ, Randolph J. A proposed staging for children with neuroblastoma. Children's cancer study group. Cancer 1971:27:374-8.
15. Drummond MF, Davies LM, Ferris FL. Assessing the costs and benefits of medical research: The diabetic retinopathy study. Soc Sci Med 1992;34: 973-81.
16. Detsky AS. Are clinical trials a cost-effective investment? JAMA 1989;262:1795-800.
17. Ewigman BG, Crane JP, Frigoletto FD, LeFevre ML, Bain RP, McNellis D. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on prenatal outcomes. N Engl J Med 1993;329:821-7.
18. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators, Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA 2002;288:321-33.
19. The International Prostate Cancer Screen Trials Evaluation Group. Large-scale randomized prostate cancer screening trials: Program performances in the European randomized screening for prostate cancer trial and the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovary cancer trial. Int J Cancer 2002;97:237-44.
20. Etzioni R, Penson DF. Legler JM, diTommaso D, Boer R, Gann PH, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: Lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:981-90.
21. Claxton J, Posnett J. An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority-setting. Health Econ 1996;5:513-24.
22. Eddy DM. Selecting technologies for assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:485-501.
23. Karnon J. Planning the efficient allocation of research funds: An adapted application of a non-parametric Bayesian value of information analysis. Health Policy 2002;61:329-47.
24. Davies L, Drummond M, Papanikolaou P. Prioritizing investments in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:73-91.