Literature DB >> 3048638

Cancer screening. Degrees of proof and practical application.

B S Hulka1.   

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the short-term and long-term objectives of screening for various cancers, and to indicate the kinds of data that are needed to determine whether or not the objectives are met. Cancers at various sites differ with respect to their innate suitability for screening. Criteria that enhance screening suitability include the potential for serious complications and a high rate of mortality (applicable to most cancers), a prolonged preclinical phase, and an existing therapy that is simpler and more effective in reducing the mortality rate when applied to preclinical disease than to clinically evident cancer. Tests and procedures suitable for screening are simple to perform, inexpensive, acceptable to patients and physicians, safe, relatively painless, and accurate, as measured by the test's sensitivity and specificity. The actual yield of previously undiagnosed cancer arising from a screening program will depend heavily on prevalence of disease in the screened population, specificity of the screening test, and successful follow-up of screen-positive patients with diagnosis and treatment. These issues are discussed in the context of four cancers and their respective screening modalities: cervical cancer and cytologic studies, breast cancer and mammography, colon cancer and fecal occult blood tests, and lung cancer and sputum cytologic studies. The quality of data on which screening decisions have been made for each of these cancers and tests varies. The cancers vary in terms of their relevant biologic characteristics and treatment effectiveness. Similarly, each screening procedure has its own particular advantages and disadvantages. Current American Cancer Society Guidelines for early detection of three of the cancers are presented.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3048638     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19881015)62:1+<1776::aid-cncr2820621314>3.0.co;2-v

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  9 in total

1.  Update on lung cancer screening: it works?

Authors:  Reginald F Munden
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2011

2.  Screening for ovarian cancer: imaging challenges and opportunities for improvement.

Authors:  K B Mathieu; D G Bedi; S L Thrower; A Qayyum; R C Bast
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 7.299

3.  Cancer screening in older adults.

Authors:  J M Walsh
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1992-05

4.  Who has the opportunity to screen for oral cancer?

Authors:  J Guggenheimer; J L Weissfeld; F J Kroboth
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 2.506

Review 5.  An up to date look at lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Nichole T Tanner; Gerard A Silvestri
Journal:  Cell Adh Migr       Date:  2010-01-18       Impact factor: 3.405

Review 6.  Lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Mylene T Truong; Reginald F Munden
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.075

7.  Application of positron emission tomography imaging to cancer screening.

Authors:  S Yasuda; M Ide; H Fujii; T Nakahara; Y Mochizuki; W Takahashi; A Shohtsu
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 8.  Cancer metabolomics: A tool of clinical utility for early diagnosis of gynaecological cancers.

Authors:  Akshata Kishore Karekar; Sucheta Prakash Dandekar
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 5.274

9.  MAGE, BAGE and GAGE: tumour antigen expression in benign and malignant ovarian tissue.

Authors:  A M Gillespie; S Rodgers; A P Wilson; J Tidy; R C Rees; R E Coleman; A K Murray
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 7.640

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.