Is 20% of a loaf enough?

Cancer

Volumn 119, Issue 7, 2013, Pages 1294-1297

  Kessler, Larry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVANCED CANCER; AWARENESS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; POPULATION DYNAMICS; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SMOKING; SMOKING CESSATION;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MALE;

EID: 84875382260     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27811     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Ma J, Ward EM, Smith R, Jemal A,. Annual number of lung cancer deaths potentially avertable by screening in the United States. Cancer. 2013; 119: 1381-1385.
2. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team, Aberle DR, Adams AM, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 395-409.
3. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Smoking and Health. Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Public Health Service Pub. No. 1103. Washington, DC: Public Health Service. Office of the Surgeon General; 1964.
4. Brown CC, Kessler LG,. Projections of lung cancer mortality in the United States: 1985-2025. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988; 80: 43-51.
5. National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute Cancer Statistics Review. Trends in Lung Cancer Mortality-Vintage 2009. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2009.
6. Moolgavkar SH, Holford TR, Levy DT, et al. Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975-2000. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104: 541-548.
7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: current cigarette smoking among adults aged > or = 18 years-United States, 2009. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010; 59: 1135-1140.
8. Goulart BH, Bensink ME, Mummy DG, Ramsey SD,. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: costs, national expenditures, and cost-effectiveness. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012; 10: 267-275.
9. McMahon PM, Kong CY, Bouzan C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of computed tomography screening for lung cancer in the United States. J Thorac Oncol. 2011; 6: 1841-1848.
10. Pyenson BS, Sander MS, Jiang Y, Kahn H, Mulshine JL,. An actuarial analysis shows that offering lung cancer screening as an insurance benefit would save lives at relatively low cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012; 31: 770-779.
11. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, et al. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States. Radiology. 2011; 259: 72-84.
12. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF,. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95: 1384-1393.
13. Wood DE, Eapen GA, Ettinger DS, et al. Lung cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012; 10: 240-265.
14. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Public Law 111-148 (March 23, 2010), as amended through May 1, 2010. Available at http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html. Accessed July 5, 2012.
15. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012; 307: 2418-2429.
16. Field JK, Smith RA, Aberle DR, et al. IASLC CT Screening Workshop 2011 Participants. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Computed Tomography Screening Workshop 2011 report. J Thorac Oncol. 2012; 7: 10-19.