Literature DB >> 7328198

Colorectal cancer screening.

W B Applegate, M H Spector.   

Abstract

The efficacy of Hemoccult screening for colorectal carcinoma is analyzed utilizing five criteria which a screening test should fulfil before it is used for mass screening. The Hemoccult screening protocol has serious weaknesses. It is at best 83% sensitive for cancer and much less sensitive for polyps. An asymptomatic person with one or more positive Hemoccult slides only has a 12% chance of having cancer. In addition, patient acceptance of mass Hemoccult screening is questionable. There is currently little information on potential survival benefits, and Hemoccult screening is expensive with one quarter of all costs incurred in the diagnostic evaluation of false positives. There is insufficient evidence to recommend Hemoccult colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic persons as a cost-effective practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1981        PMID: 7328198     DOI: 10.1007/bf01323232

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Health        ISSN: 0094-5145


  29 in total

1.  Reliability of chemical tests for fecal occult blood in hospitalized patients.

Authors:  D W Morris; J R Hansell; J D Ostrow; C S Lee
Journal:  Am J Dig Dis       Date:  1976-10

Review 2.  The annual Pap test: a dubious policy success.

Authors:  A M Foltz; J L Kelsey
Journal:  Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc       Date:  1978

3.  Evaluating periodic multiphasic health checkups: a controlled trial.

Authors:  L G Dales; G D Friedman; M F Collen
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1979

4.  What do we gain from the sixth stool guaiac?

Authors:  D Neuhauser; A M Lewicki
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1975-07-31       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  COMPLICATIONS OF THE BARIUM ENEMA.

Authors:  W B SEAMAN; J WELLS
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1965-06       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Measures of clinical efficacy. Cost-effectiveness calculations in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertensive renovascular disease.

Authors:  B J McNeil; P D Varady; B A Burrows; S J Adelstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1975-07-31       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Complications in colonoscopy.

Authors:  W H Schwesinger; B A Levine; R Ramos
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1979-02

Review 8.  Validation of screening procedures.

Authors:  A L Cochrane; W W Holland
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  1971-01       Impact factor: 4.291

9.  Lead time gained by diagnostic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  G B Hutchison; S Shapiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1968-09       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Comparative educational approaches to screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  T W Elwood; A Erickson; S Lieberman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1978-02       Impact factor: 9.308

View more
  4 in total

1.  Routine hemoccult screening: the current evidence.

Authors:  J W Frank
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Cost effectiveness of HemoQuant versus Hemoccult for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  A M Joseph; T W Crowson; E C Rich
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Assessing the cost-effectiveness of prevention.

Authors:  H D Banta; B R Luce
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  1983

Review 4.  The pros and cons of fecal occult blood testing for colorectal neoplasms.

Authors:  J B Simon
Journal:  Cancer Metastasis Rev       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 9.264

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.