Mini Review

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Conundrums in screening for cancer†

  1. Anthony B. Miller*

Article first published online: 3 DEC 2009

DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25081

Issue

International Journal of Cancer

International Journal of Cancer

Volume 126, Issue 5, pages 1039–1046, 1 March 2010

Additional Information

How to Cite

Miller, A. B. (2010), Conundrums in screening for cancer. Int. J. Cancer, 126: 1039–1046. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25081

Author Information

  1. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, ON, Canada

*Associate Director, Research, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada

  1. †

    This article is based upon the Joint International Journal of Cancer and Meyenburg-Stiftung Lectureship, delivered at Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, February 18, 2009.

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 27 DEC 2009
  2. Article first published online: 3 DEC 2009
  3. Accepted manuscript online: 3 DEC 2009 12:00AM EST
  4. Manuscript Accepted: 24 NOV 2009
  5. Manuscript Received: 13 NOV 2009

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (262K)

References

  • 1
    Commission on Chronic Illness. Chronic illness in the United States: prevention of chronic illness. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1957.
  • 2
    Wald NJ. Guidance on terminology. J Med Screen 2001; 8: 56.
  • 3
    Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public Health Paper # 34, WHO, Geneva Switzerland, 1968.
  • 4
    Hakama M, Chamberlain J, Day NE, Miller AB, Prorok PC. Evaluation of screening programmes for gynecological cancer. Br J Cancer 1985; 52: 669–73.
  • 5
    Hakama M, Auvinen A, Day NE, Miller AB. Sensitivity in cancer screening. J Med Screen 2007; 14: 74–7.
  • 6
    Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, Hanna LA, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Jong RA, et al.; DMIST Investigators Group. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246: 376–83.
  • 7
    Miller AB. Fundamental issues in screening for cancer. In: SchottenfeldD, FraumeniJF, Jr., eds. Cancer epidemiology and prevention, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 1433–52.
  • 8
    Miller AB. Design of cancer screening trials/randomized trials for evaluation of cancer screening. World J Surg 2006; 30: 1152–62.
  • 9
    Marcus PM, Bergstralh E, Fagerstrom RM, Williams DE, Fontana R, Taylor WF, Prorok PC. Lung cancer mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: impact of extended followup. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1308–16.
  • 10
    Bach PB. Overdiagnosis in lung cancer: different perspectives, definitions, limitations. Thorax 2008; 63: 298–300.
  • 11
    Reich JM. A critical appraisal of overdiagnosis: estimates of its magnitude and implications for lung cancer screening. Thorax 2008; 63: 377–83.
  • 12
    The International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators. Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1763–71.
  • 13
    Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 305–12.
  • 14
    Zalhl P-H, Strand BH, Maehlen J. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study. Br Med J 2004; 328: 921–4.
  • 15
    IARC. IARC handbooks on cancer prevention, vol. 7, Breast cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002.
  • 16
    Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L; for the Trial Management Group. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years' follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 368: 2053–60.
  • 17
    Beahrs O, Shapiro S, Smart C. Report of the working group to review the National Cancer Institute American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Projects. J Natl Cancer Inst 1979; 62: 640–709.
  • 18
    Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L, Venet W. Periodic screening for breast cancer. The Health Insurance Plan Project and its Sequelae, 1963–1986. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.
  • 19
    Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women age 50–59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 1490–9.
  • 20
    Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. Am J Radiol 1993; 161: 755–60.
  • 21
    Boyd NF, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ, Tritchler D, Lockwood G, Zylak CJ. A critical appraisal of the National Breast Cancer Screening Study. Radiology 1993; 189: 661–3.
  • 22
    Holmberg LH, Tabar L, Adami HO, Bergstrom R. Survival in breast cancer diagnosed between mammographic screening examinations. Lancet 1986; ii: 27–30.
  • 23
    Tabar L, Chen H-HT, Duffy SW, Kruesmo UB. Primary and adjuvant therapy, prognostic factors and survival in 1053 breast cancers diagnosed in a trial of mammography screening. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1999; 2129: 608–16.
  • 24
    Rijnsburger AI, van Oortmarssen GJ, Boer R, Draisma G, To T, Miller AB, de Koning HJ. Mammography benefit in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: a model evaluation. Int J Cancer 2004; 110: 756–62.
    Direct Link:
  • 25
    Okonkwo QL, Draisma G, der Kinderen A, Brown ML, de Koning HJ. Breast cancer screening policies in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for India. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 1290–1300.
  • 26
    Miller A. Practical applications for clinical breast examination (CBE) and breast self-examination (BSE) in screening and early detection of breast cancer. Breast Care 2008; 3: 17–20.
  • 27
    Hakama M. Trends in the incidence of cervical cancer in the Nordic countries. In: MagnusK, ed. Trends in cancer incidence. Washington DC: Hemisphere Publ, 1982. 279–92.
  • 28
    Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allen E; on behalf of the United Kingdom Association of Cancer Registries. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. Br Med J 1999; 318: 904–8.
  • 29
    Boyes DA, Morrison B, Knox EG, Draper G, Miller AB. A cohort study of cervical cancer screening in British Columbia. Clin Invest Med 1982; 5: 1–29.
  • 30
    Holowaty P, Miller AB, Rohan T, To T. The natural history of dysplasia of the uterine cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 252–8.
  • 31
    IARC Working Group on Cervical Cancer Screening. Summary chapter. In: HakamaM, MillerAB, DayNE, eds. Screening for cancer of the cervix. IARC Scientific Publication No. 76. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1986. 133–42.
  • 32
    IARC. IARC handbooks on cancer prevention, vol. 10, Cervix cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2005.
  • 33
    Howlett RI, Miller AB, Pasut G, Mai V. Defining a strategy to evaluate cervical cancer prevention and early detection in the era of HPV vaccination. Prev Med 2009; 48: 432–7.
  • 34
    Dillner J, Rebolj M, Birembaut P, Petry K-U, Szarewski U, Munk C, de Sanjose S, Naucler P, Lloveras B, Kjaer S, Cuzick J, van Ballegooijen M, et al. Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study. Br Med J 2008; 377: a1754 doi:10.1136/bmj.a1754.
  • 35
    Etzioni R, Feuer E. Studies of prostate cancer mortality: caution advised. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 407–9.
  • 36
    Andriole GL, Grubb RL, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Kvale PA, Reding DJ, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Crawford ED, et al.; for the PLCO Project Team. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Eng J Med 2009; 360: 1310–19.
  • 37
    Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TLJ, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, Denis LJ, Recker F, et al.; for the ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized. European study. N Eng J Med 2009; 360: 1320–28.
  • 38
    American Urological Association (AUA). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. Oncology (Williston Park) 2000; 14: 267–72, 277–8, 280 passim.
  • 39
    American Cancer Society, Cancer screening guidelines 2008. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_2_3x_acs_cancer_detection_ guidelines_ 36.asp. Last accessed on January 5, 2009.
  • 40
    Wolters T, Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, van den Bergh RCN, Bangma CH, Hugosson J, Ciatto S, Kwiatkowski M, Villers A, Luján M, Nelen V, Tammela TLJ, et al. The effect of study arm on prostate cancer treatment in a large screening trial (ERSPC). Int J Cancer, in press.
  • 41
    Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ, van der Cruijsen IW, Damhuis RAM, Schröder FH, de Koning HJ. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 868–78.
  • 42
    Frankel S, Smith GD, Donovan J, Neal D. Screening for prostate cancer. Lancet 2003; 361: 1122–8.
  • 43
    Raffle AE, Gray JAM. Screening: evidence and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. pp 366.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (262K)