Literature DB >> 7571574

Screening for cancer. Useful despite its limitations.

S J McPhee1.   

Abstract

Effective primary prevention strategies are currently available for only a limited number of types of malignant neoplasms. In the meantime, the most effective intervention for cancer control is screening for the early detection of cancer in otherwise asymptomatic persons. Screening is probably most useful for cancers wherein the stage at diagnosis is clearly related to curability. Early detection by screening has been shown to lead to a better outcome following the treatment of cancers of the breast, cervix, and colon. Screening for cancer also enables preneoplastic states to be detected and treated. Screening programs offer an opportunity to enhance the potential of chemoprevention. New cancer screening tests will soon be developed, including some that will detect known genetic predispositions to cancer. Each new screening test must be critically evaluated in rigorous studies before being embraced or rejected by clinicians and patients. In particular, screening efficacy must be demonstrated as judged by improved survival of those screened.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7571574      PMCID: PMC1303023     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  West J Med        ISSN: 0093-0415


  10 in total

Review 1.  Screening for cancers of the cervix and breast.

Authors:  K E Richert-Boe; L L Humphrey
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1992-12

Review 2.  Chemoprevention.

Authors:  P Greenwald; G Kelloff; C Burch-Whitman; B S Kramer
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Prostate cancer screening: what we know and what we need to know.

Authors:  B S Kramer; M L Brown; P C Prorok; A L Potosky; J K Gohagan
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1993-11-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  The effect of mass screening in Iceland, 1965-74, on the incidence and mortality of cervical carcinoma.

Authors:  G Johannesson; G Geirsson; N Day
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1978-04-15       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer.

Authors:  J V Selby; G D Friedman; C P Quesenberry; N S Weiss
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1992-03-05       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Mutations of two PMS homologues in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer.

Authors:  N C Nicolaides; N Papadopoulos; B Liu; Y F Wei; K C Carter; S M Ruben; C A Rosen; W A Haseltine; R D Fleischmann; C M Fraser
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1994-09-01       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.

Authors:  S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Detection of K-ras mutation in colonic effluent samples from patients without evidence of colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  M Tobi; F C Luo; Z Ronai
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1994-07-06       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Cancer statistics, 1995.

Authors:  P A Wingo; T Tong; S Bolden
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Introduction.

Authors:  F Fitzgerald
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1995-08
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.