Screening in the dark: Ethical considerations of providing screening tests to individuals when evidence is insufficient to support screening populations

American Journal of Bioethics

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 3-14

  Burger, Ingrid M ^a   Kass, Nancy E ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Computed tomography; Decision making; Ethics; Evidence; Professionalism; Screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DECISION MAKING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ETHICS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; MASS COMMUNICATION; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL SOCIETY; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT RIGHT; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RISK FACTOR; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

DECISION MAKING; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT RIGHTS; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN'S ROLE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

EID: 65249168698     PISSN: 15265161     EISSN: 15360075     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15265160902790583     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Aiken, L. S., Fenaughty, A.M., West, S.G., Johnson, J. J., and Luckett, T. L. 1995. Perceived determinants of risk for breast cancer and the relations among objective risk, perceived risk, and screening behavior over time. Women’s Health 1: 27–50.
2. American College of Radiology (ACR). 2004. Position Statement on Full-Body CT Screening. Available at: www.acr.org (accessed May 2007)
3. American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Scientific Affairs. 2003. Featured Report: Commercialized Medical Screening (A-03), American Medical Association. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13628.shtml (accessed September 2008)
4. Amis, E. S., Jr. 2003. CT screening. Radiology 228: 901–902.
5. Ashby, D., and Smith, A. F. 2000. Evidence-based medicine as Bayesian decision-making. Statistics in Medicine 19: 3291–3305.
6. Ashcroft, R. E. 2004. Current epistemological problems in evidence based medicine. Journal of Medical Ethics 30: 131–135.
7. Beauchamp, T., and Childress, J. 2000. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
8. Bederson, J. B., Awad, I. A., Wiebers, D. O., et al. 2000. Recommendations for the management of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms: A Statement for healthcare professionals from the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association. Stroke 31: 2742–2750
9. Bell, R. A., Kravitz, R. L., and Wilkes, M. S. 1999. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the public. Journal of General Internal Medicine 14: 651–657.
10. Berlin, L. 2003. Should whole-body CT screening be performed with contrast media? American Journal of Roentgenology 180: 323–325
11. Black, C., Bagust, A., Boland, A., et al. 2006. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer: Systematic reviews. Health Technology Assessment 10: iii–iv, ix–x, 1–90.
12. Black, W. C., and Welch, H. G. 1993. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy New England Journal of Medicine 328: 1237–1243.
13. Black, W. C., and Welch, H. G. 1997. Screening for disease. American Journal of Roentgenology 168: 3–11.
14. Brant-Zawadzki, M. 2002a. CT screening: Why I do it. American Journal of Roentgenology 179: 319–326.
15. Brant-Zawadzki, M. N. 2000. Screening on demand: Potent of a revolution in medicine. Diagnostic Imaging 22: 25–27.
16. Brant-Zawadzki, M.N. 2002b. Screening CT: Rationale. Radiographics 22: 1532–1536; discussion 6–9.
17. Burnside, E., Rubin, D., and Shachter, R. 2000. A Bayesian network formammography. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings : 106–110.
18. Burnside, E. S., Rubin, D. L., Fine, J. P., Shachter, R. D., Sisney, G.A., and Leung, W. K. 2006. Bayesian network to predict breast cancer risk of mammographic microcalcifications and reduce number of benign biopsy results: Initial experience. Radiology 240: 666–673.
19. Canto, M. I., Goggins, M., Hruban, R. H., et al. 2006. Screening for early pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: A prospective controlled study. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 4: 766–781; quiz 665
20. Chan, E. C., and Sulmasy, D. P. 1998. What shouldmen know about prostate-specific antigen screening before giving informed consent? American Journal of Medicine 105: 266–274.
21. Chan, E. C., Vernon, S. W., Haynes, M. C., O’Donnell, F. T., and Ahn, C. 2003. Physician perspectives on the importance of facts men ought to know about prostate-specific antigen testing. Journal of General Internal Medicine 18: 350–356.
22. Cobb, L., Thomas, G., and Dillard, D. 1959. An evaluation of internal-mammary-artery ligation by a double-blind technique. New England Journal of Medicine 260: 1115–1118.
23. Cochrane.org. Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: www.cochrane.org (accessed May 2007)
24. Cole, P., and Morrison, A. S. 1980. Basic issues in population screening for cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 64: 1263–1272.
25. Crawley, F., Clifton, A., and Brown, M. M. 1999. Should we screen for familial intracranial aneurysm? Stroke 30: 312–316.
26. Dimond, E. G., Kittle, F., and Crockett, J. 1960. Comparison of internal mammary artery ligation and sham operations for angina pectoris. American Journal of Cardiology 5: 483–486.
27. Domenighetti, G., D’Avanzo, B., Egger, M., et al. 2003. Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: Populationbased survey in four countries. International Journal of Epidemiology 32: 816–821.
28. Doukas, D. J., Fetters, M., Ruffin, M. T., and McCullough, L. B. 1997. Ethical considerations in the provision of controversial screening tests. Archives of Family Medicine 6: 486–490.
29. Fishman, E. K., and Horton, K. M. 2002. Screening strategy joins contrast, noncontrast scans. Diagnostic Imaging 24: 45–47.
30. Flood, A. B., Wennberg, J. E., Nease, R. F., Jr., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Ding, J., and Hynes, L.M. 1996. The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team. Journal of General Internal Medicine 11: 342–349.
31. Franco, E. L., Duarte-Franco, E., and Rohan, T. E. 2002. Evidencebased policy recommendations on cancer screening and prevention. Cancer Detection and Prevention Journal 26: 350–361.
32. Gazelle, G. S., McMahon, P. M., Siebert, U., and Beinfeld, M. T. 2005. Cost-effectiveness analysis in the assessment of diagnostic imaging technologies. Radiology 235: 361–370.
33. Gohagan J., Marcus, P., Fagerstrom, R., Pinsky, P., Kramer, B., and Prorok, P. 2004. Baseline findings of a randomized feasibility trial of lung cancer screening with spiral CT scan vs chest radiograph: The Lung Screening Study of the National Cancer Institute. Chest 126: 114–121.
34. Group TEIBS. 1985. Failure of extracranial–intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke: Results of an international randomized trial. New England Journal of Medicine 313: 1191–1200.
35. Harris, R. P., Helfand, M., Woolf, S. H. et al. 2001. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: A review of the process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20: 21–35.
36. Henschke, C. I., Yankelevitz, D. F., Libby, D. M., Pasmantier, M. W., Smith, J. P., and Miettinen, O. S. 2006. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 1763–1771.
37. Hillman, B. J. 2003a. CT screening: Who benefits and who pays. Radiology 228: 26–28.
38. Hillman, B. J. 2003b. Economic, legal, and ethical rationales for the ACRIN national lung screening trial of CT screening for lung cancer. Academic Radiology 10: 349–350.
39. Illes, J., Fan, E., Koenig, B.A., Raffin, T. A., Kann, D., and Atlas, S.W. 2003. Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: Current implications for health care consumers. Radiology 228: 346–351.
40. Illes, J., Kann, D., Karetsky, K. et al. 2004. Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Archives of Internal Medicine 164: 2415–2419
41. Kalish, G. M., Bhargavan, M., Sunshine, J. H., and Forman, H. P. 2004. Self-referred whole-body imaging: Where are we now? Radiology 233: 353–358.
42. Katapodi, M. C., Lee, K. A., Facione, N. C., and Dodd, M. J. 2004. Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: a meta-analytic review. Preventive Medicine 38: 388–402.
43. Kopans, D. B., Monsees, B., and Feig, S. A. 2003. Screening for cancer: When is it valid? Lessons from the mammography experience. Radiology 229: 319–327.
44. Kreuter, M. W. 1999. Dealing with competing and conflicting risks in cancer communication. Journal of the National Cancer Institute— Monographs 25: 27–35.
45. Lee, T. H., and Brennan, T. A. 2002. Direct-to-consumer marketing of high-technology screening tests. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 529–531.
46. The Magnetic Resonance Angiography in Relatives of Patients with Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Study Group. 1999. Risks and benefits of screening for intracranial aneurysms in first-degree relatives of patients with sporadic subarachnoid hemorrhage. New England Journal of Medicine 341: 1344–1350.
47. Malm, H. M. 1999. Medical screening and the value of early detection. When unwarranted faith leads to unethical recommendations. Hastings Center Report 29: 26–37.
48. Marcus, A. C. 1999. New directions for risk communication research: a discussion with additional suggestions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute—Monographs 25: 35–42.
49. Meakins, J. L. 2002. Innovation in surgery: The rules of evidence. American Journal of Surgery 183: 399–405.
50. Mello, M. M., and Brennan, T. A. 2001. The controversy over highdose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Health Affairs 20: 101–117.
51. Morrison, A. 1992. Screening in Chronic Disease. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 3–20.
52. National Cancer Institute. 2005. National Lung Screening Trial. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/NLST (accessed May 2007)
53. Obuchowski, N. A., Graham, R. J., Baker, M. E., and Powell, K. A. 2001. Ten criteria for effective screening: Their application to multislice CT screening for pulmonary and colorectal cancers. AJR American Journal of Roentgenology 176: 1357–1362.
54. Patz, E. F., Jr., Black, W. C., and Goodman, P. C. 2001. CT screening for lung cancer: not ready for routine practice. Radiology 221: 587–591; 598–599.
55. Pellegrino, E. D. 2001. The internal morality of clinical medicine: a paradigm for the ethics of the helping and healing professions. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26: 559–579.
56. Pfizer RaD. 2008. Policy on compassionate use. Available at http://www.pfizer.com/research/sciencepolicy/compassionateusepolicy.jsp (accessed September 2008)
57. Pocock, S. 1983. Clinical Trials—A Practical Approach. Chichester, UK: Wiley
58. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., and Richardson, W. S. 1996. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ: British Medical Journal 312: 71–72.
59. Samet, J. 1993. The epidemiology of lung cancer. Chest 103: 20S–9S
60. Schwab, K. E., Gailloud, P., Wyse, G., and Tamargo, R. J. 2008. Limitations of magnetic resonance imaging andmagnetic resonance angiography in the diagnosis of intracranial aneurysms. Neurosurgery 63: 29–34.
61. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Fowler, F. J., Jr., and Welch, H. G. 2004. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 291: 71–78.
62. Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Sox, H. C., Fischhoff, B., and Welch, H. G. 2000. US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ: British Medical Journal 320: 1635–1640.
63. Siedt, D. 2004, July 9. Insurance firms say body scans are ’retail medicine’. Daily Record. Available at www.mddailyrecord.com (accessed July 2004)
64. Silverman, E., Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Byram, S. J., Welch, H. G., and Fischhoff, B. 2001. Women’s views on breast cancer risk and screening mammography: A qualitative interview study. Medical Decision Making 21: 231–240.
65. Sox, H. 2001. Annals of Internal Medicine’s Harold Sox, MD, discusses physician charter of professionalism. Interview by Brian Vastag. JAMA 286: 3065–3066.
66. Strauss, G. M., Dominioni, L., Jett, J. R., Freedman, M., Grannis, F. W., Jr. 2005. Como international conference position statement: lung cancer screening for early diagnosis 5 years after the 1998 Varese conference. Chest 127: 1146–1151.
67. Sunshine, J. H., and Applegate, K. E. 2004. Technology assessment for radiologists. Radiology 230: 309–314.
68. Swensen, S. J., Jett, T. E., Hartman, S. J., et al. 2005. CT screening for lung cancer: Five-year prospective experience. Radiology 235: 259–265.
69. Thompson, L. 2000. Experimental treatment? Unapproved but not always unavailable. FDA Consumer Magazine. Available at http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/100exp.html (accessed September 2008)
70. United States Food and Administration (USFDA). 2002. Whole Body Scanning Using Computed Tomography. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/ (accessed)
71. United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). USPSTF 2004a. Cancer Screening Recommendations. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm (accessed May 2007)
72. USPSTF. 2004b. Screening for Pancreatic Cancer Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspspanc.htm (accessed May 2007)
73. USPSTF. 2004c. Screening for Lung Cancer. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspslung.htm (accessed May 2007)
74. USPSTF. 2006. Screening for Prostate Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/prostatescr.htm (accessed May 2007)
75. USPSTF. 2007a. Appendix A: How the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grades Its Recommendations. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/pocketgd/gcpsapp.htm (accessed May 2007)
76. USPSTF. 2007b. USPSTF Strength of Recommendations. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/ratings.htm#irec (accessed May 2007)
77. Vernon, S. W. 1999. Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review. Journal of the National Cancer Institute—Monographs 25: 101–119.
78. Volk, R. J., Cass, A. R., and Spann, S. J. 1999. A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Archives of Family Medicine 8: 333–340.
79. Volk, R. J., Spann, S. J., Cass, A. R., and Hawley, S. T. 2003. Patient education for informed decision making about prostate cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. Annals of Family Medicine 1: 22–28.
80. Welch, H. G. 1996. Questions about the value of early intervention. New England Journal of Medicine 334: 1472–1473.
81. Welch, H. G. 2001. Informed choice in cancer screening. JAMA 285: 2776–2778.
82. Welch, H. G. 2004. Should I Be Tested for Cancer? May be Not and Here’s Why. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press
83. Wolf, A. M., Nasser, J. F., Schorling, J. B. 1996. The impact of informed consent on patient interest in prostatespecific antigen screening. Archives of Internal Medicine 156: 1333–1336
84. Woloshin S., Schwartz, L., and Welch, H. G. 2005, August 22. Warned, But Worse Off. New York Times, A13
85. Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Byram, S. J., Sox, H. C., Fischhoff, B., and Welch, H. G. 2000. Women’s understanding of the mammography screening debate. Archives of Internal Medicine 160: 1434–1440
86. Woolf, S. H., Di Guiseppi, C.G., Atkins, D., and Kamerow, D. B. 1996. Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: Lessons learned by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Annual Review of Public Health 17: 511–538.
87. Xu, D. M., Gietema, H., de Koning, H., Vernhout, R., Nackaerts, K. et al. 2006. Nodule management protocol of the NELSON randomised lung cancer screening trial. Lung Cancer 54: 177–184.