Principles of Cancer Screening

Surgical Clinics of North America

Volumn 95, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 953-966

  Pinsky, Paul F ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer screening; Lead time; Number needed to screen; Overdiagnosis; Performance characteristics; Targeted screening

Indexed keywords

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BLADDER CANCER; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; COLORECTAL CANCER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; LUNG CANCER; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MOUTH CANCER; NORTH AMERICA; OVARY CANCER; PANCREAS CANCER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN CANCER; TESTIS CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; ADVERSE EFFECTS; CANADA; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

CANADA; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; NEOPLASMS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84940614554     PISSN: 00396109     EISSN: 15583171     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2015.05.009     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Habbema D., de Kok I., Brown M.L. Cervical cancer screening in the United States and the Netherlands: a tale of two countries. Milbank Q 2012, 90:5-37.
2. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team Results of initial low-dose computed tomographic screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2013, 368:1980-1991.
3. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis G., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1773-1783.
4. Buys S.S., Partridge E., Black A., et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2011, 305:2295-2302.
5. Whitlock E.P., Lin J.S., Liles E., et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2008, 149:638-658.
6. Croswell J.M., Ransohoff D.F., Kramer B.S. Principles of cancer screening: lessons from history and study design issues. Semin Oncol 2010, 37:202-215.
7. U.S.Preventive Services Task Force Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:1716-1726.
8. Pinsky P.F., Church T., Izmirlian G., et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: results stratified by demographics, smoking history and lung cancer histology. Cancer 2013, 119:3976-3983.
9. Schroder F.H., Hugosson H., Roobol M.J., et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 2014, 384:2027-2035.
10. Andriole G.L., Crawford E.D., Grubb R., et al. Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012, 104:125-132.
11. Schoen R.E., Pinsky P.F., Weissfeld J.L., et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 2011, 366(25):2345-2357.
12. Atkin W.S., Edwards R., Kralj-Hans I., et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010, 375:1624-1633.
13. Segnan N., Armaroli P., Bonelli L., et al. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial - SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103:1310-1322.
14. Holme O., Loberg M., Kalager M., et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized trial. JAMA 2014, 312:606-615.
15. Rembold C.M. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ 1998, 317:307-312.
16. SEER - National Cancer Institute. SEER statistical summaries. Available at: Accessed January 15, 2015. http://www.seer.cancer.gov.
17. Berry D.A., Cronin K.A., Plevritis S.K., et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1784-1792.
18. Etzioni R., Legler J.M., Feuer E.J., et al. Cancer surveillance series: interpreting trends in prostate cancer. Part III: quantifying the link between population prostate-specific antigen testing and recent declines in prostate cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999, 16:1033-1039.
19. De Gelder R., Draisma G., Heijnsdijk E., et al. Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths. Br J Cancer 2011, 104:1214-1220.
20. Brenner D.J. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology 2004, 231:440-445.
21. Bielawska B., Day A.G., Lieberman D.A., et al. Risk factors for early colonoscopic perforation include non-gastroenterologist endoscopists: a multivariable analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014, 12:85-92.
22. Rutter C.M., Johnson E., Miglioretti D.L., et al. Adverse events after screening and follow-up colonoscopy. Cancer Causes Control 2012, 23:289-296.
23. Byrne M.M., Weissfeld J., Roberts M.S. Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening. Med Decis Making 2008, 28:917-925.
24. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011, 365:395-409.
25. Pinsky P.F., Parnes H.L., Andriole G. Mortality and complications following prostate biopsy in the PLCO cancer Screening Trial. Br J Urol Int 2014, 113:254-259.
26. Biesheuvel C., Barratt A., Howard K., et al. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer over-detection with mammography screening. Lancet Oncol 2007, 8:1129-1138.
27. Sharaf R.N., Ladabaum U. Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy vs. sigmoidoscopy and alternative strategies. Am J Gastroenterol 2013, 108:120-132.
28. Stout N.K., Lee S.J., Schechter C.B., et al. Benefits, harms and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014, 106:dju092.
29. Rex D.K., Johnson D.A., Anderson J.C., et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol 2009, 104:739-750.
30. U.S.Preventive Services Task Force Screening for lung cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2014, 160:330-338.
31. Pinsky P.F., Berg C. Applying the National Lung Screening Trial eligibility criteria to the US population: what percent of the population and of incident lung cancers would be covered. J Med Screen 2012, 19:154-156.
32. Krabbe L.M., Svatek R.S., Shariat S.F., et al. Bladder cancer risk: use of the PLCO and NLST to identify a suitable screening cohort. Urol Oncol 2015, 33(2):65.e19-65.e25.
33. Mir M.C., Stephenson A.J., Grubb R., et al. Predicting risk of bladder cancer using clinical and demographic information from prostate, lung colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial participants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013, 22:2241-2249.
34. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for primary care practice. Available at: Accessed January 12, 2015. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org.
35. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guidelines. Available at: Accessed January 12, 2015. http://canadiantaskforce.ca/ctfphc-guidelines.