Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. BJS 2013; 100: 55-65.
Published: 5th December 2012
Authors: M. Bretthauer, M. Kalager
Cancer screening has the potential to prevent or reduce incidence and mortality of the target disease, but may also be harmful and have unwanted side‐effects.
This review explains the basic principles of cancer screening, common pitfalls in evaluation of effectiveness and harms of screening, and summarizes the evidence for effects and harms of the most commonly used cancer screening tools.
Cancer screening has either been established or is considered for breast, lung, prostate, cervical and colorectal cancer. In contrast, screening for gastrointestinal malignancies outside the large bowel is not generally accepted, available or implemented. Oesophageal and gastric carcinoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma, may be subject to screening in certain risk populations, but currently not for population screening based on available technology. Screening for colorectal cancer and cervical cancer by endoscopy and cytology respectively can decrease incidence of the target disease, whereas screening tools for lung, prostate and breast cancer detect early‐stage invasive disease and thus do not decrease disease incidence. Overdiagnosis (detection of cancers that will not have become clinically apparent in the absence of screening) is a challenge in lung, prostate and breast cancer screening. The improvement of quality of clinical practice following the introduction of cancer screening programmes is an appreciated ‘side‐effect’, but it is important to disentangle the effect of screening on cancer incidence and mortality from that of quality improvement of clinical services. As new, powerful screening tests emerge—particularly in molecular and genetic fields, but also in radiology and other clinical diagnostics–the basic requirements for screening evaluation and implementation must be borne in mind.
Cancer screening has been established for several cancer forms in Europe. The potential for incidence and mortality reduction is good, but harms do exist that need to be addressed, and communicated to the public. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Full text
You may also be interested in
Short‐term medical treatment of hypercalcaemia in primary hyperparathyroidism predicts symptomatic response after parathyroidectomy.
Authors: A. Koman, S. Ohlsson, R. Bränström, Y. Pernow, R. Bränström, I.‐L. Nilsson et al.
Development and evaluation of the General Surgery Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (GOSATS).
Authors: Y. Halwani, A. K. Sachdeva, L. Satterthwaite, S. de Montbrun
Randomized controlled trial of plain English and visual abstracts for disseminating surgical research via social media.
Authors: S. J. Chapman, R. C. Grossman, M. E. B. FitzPatrick, R. R. W. Brady
Authors: H. K. James, A. W. Chapman, G. T. R. Pattison, D. R. Griffin, J. D. Fisher
Network meta‐analysis of urinary retention and mortality after Lichtenstein repair of inguinal hernia under local, regional or general anaesthesia.
Authors: J. H. H. Olsen, S. Öberg, K. Andresen, T. W. Klausen, J. Rosenberg
Effect of donor nephrectomy time during circulatory‐dead donor kidney retrieval on transplant graft failure.
Authors: L. Heylen, J. Pirenne, U. Samuel, I. Tieken, M. Coemans, M. Naesens et al.
Authors: L. Cairncross, H. A. Snow, D. C. Strauss, M. J. F. Smith, O. Sjokvist, C. Messiou et al.
Dysregulation of the actin scavenging system and inhibition of DNase activity following severe thermal injury.
Authors: R. J. Dinsdale, J. Hazeldine, K. Al Tarrah, P. Hampson, A. Devi, C. Ermogenous et al.
Authors: C. A. Sewalt, E. Venema, E. J. A. Wiegers, F. E. Lecky, S. C. E. Schuit, D. den Hartog et al.
Validation of the Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) in Swedish trauma populations.
Authors: P. Ghorbani, T. Troëng, O. Brattström, K. G. Ringdal, T. Eken, A. Ekbom et al.