Sensitivity, effect and overdiagnosis in screening for cancers with detectable pre-invasive phase

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 136, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 928-935

  Hakama, Matti ^a,b   Pokhrel, Arun ^a   Malila, Nea ^a,b   Hakulinen, Timo ^a  

^a FINNISH CANCER REGISTRY   (Finland)

^b TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Effectiveness; Efficacy; Episode sensitivity; Overdiagnosis; Programme sensitivity; Test sensitivity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOANALYZER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; DISEASE COURSE; DISEASE MARKER; EFFECTIVENESS; EFFICACY; EPISODE SENSITIVITY; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; OVERDIAGNOSIS; PRECANCER; PREINVASIVE LESION; PROGRAMME SENSITIVITY; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; TEST SENSITIVITY; ALGORITHM; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; INCIDENCE; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR INVASION;

ALGORITHMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; NEOPLASMS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84918794131     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29053     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. IARC. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention, vol. 10: Cervix cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2005
2. Hakama M, Auvinen A, Day NE, et al. Sensitivity in cancer screening. J Med Screen 2007;14:174-7
3. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972
4. Cole P, Morrison AS. Basic issues in population screening for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1980;64: 1263-72
5. Anttila A, Pokhrel A, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, et al. Cervical cancer patterns with automation-Assisted and conventional cytological screening: A randomized study. Int J Cancer 2011;128:1204-12
6. Finnish Cancer Registry. Cancer incidence in Finland 1998 and 1999. Cancer Society of Finland Publication No. 63. Helsinki: Cancer Society of Finland, 2002
7. Bray F, Loos AH, McCarron P, et al. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: Changing risk and the effects of screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:677-86
8. Hakama M, Räsänen-Virtanen U. Effect of a mass screening program on the risk of cervical cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1976;103:512-17
9. Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1997;16:1017-29
10. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Anttila A, et al. Organised vs. spontaneous Pap-smear screening for cervical cancer: A case-control study. Int J Cancer 1999;83: 55-8
11. Day NE. Estimating the sensitivity of a screening test. J Epidemiol Community Health 1985;39: 364-6
12. Malila N, Leinonen M, Kotaniemi-Talonen L, et al. The HPV test has similar sensitivity but more overdiagnosis than the Pap test-A randomised health services study on cervical cancer screening in Finland. Int J Cancer 2013;132:2141-7
13. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1385-94.