• 1
    RiesLAG, EisnerMP, KosaryCL, et al. (eds) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1999. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2002. Available at:, 2002
  • 2
    Edwards BK, Howe HL, Ries LA, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1999, featuring implications of age and aging on U.S. cancer burden. Cancer 2002; 94:27662792.
  • 3
    Doll R, Peto R. The causes of cancer: Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Inst 1981; 66:11911308.
  • 4
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von E, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52:822.
  • 5
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2d ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
  • 6
    Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA 1971; 215:17771785.
  • 7
    Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study [published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 1993 Aug 26;329:672] [see comments]. N Engl J Med 1993; 328:13651371.
  • 8
    Laara E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: Association with organised screening programmes. Lancet 1987; 1:12471249.
  • 9
    Tarone RE, Chu KC, Brawley OW. Implications of stage-specific survival rates in assessing recent declines in prostate cancer mortality rates. Epidemiology 2000; 11:167170.
  • 10
    Bartsch G, Horninger W, Klocker H, et al. Prostate cancer mortality after introduction of prostate-specific antigen mass screening in the Federal State of Tyrol, Austria. Urology 2001; 58:417424.
  • 11
    Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, et al. A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:781789.
  • 12
    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts and figures 2003. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2003.
  • 13
    Mettlin CJ, Murphy GP, Sylvester J, et al. Results of hospital cancer registry surveys by the American College of Surgeons: Outcomes of prostate cancer treatment by radical prostatectomy. Cancer 1997; 80:18751881.
  • 14
    Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90:13711388.
  • 15
    Elledge RM, Fuqua SAW. Estrogen and progesterone receptors. In: HarrisJR, LippmanME, MorrowM, OsborneCK, eds. Diseases of the Breast, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000:471488.
  • 16
    Cauley JA, Norton L, Lippman ME, et al. Continued breast cancer risk reduction in postmenopausal women treated with raloxifene: 4-year results from the MORE trial. Multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001; 65:125134.
  • 17
    Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, et al. A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-positive tumors. N Engl J Med 1989; 320:479484.
  • 18
    Smith RA, von Eschenbach AC, Wender R, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: Update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: Update 2001—testing for early lung cancer detection. CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51:3875.
  • 19
    Wysowski DK, Honig SF, Beitz J. Uterine sarcoma associated with tamoxifen use. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:18321833.
  • 20
    Wickerham DL, Fisher B, Wolmark N, et al. Association of tamoxifen and uterine sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:27582760.
  • 21
    Cummings SR, Eckert S, Krueger KA, et al. The effect of raloxifene on risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: Results from the MORE randomized trial. Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation. Jama 1999; 281:21892197.
  • 22
    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81:18791886.
  • 23
    National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP). Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool 2000. Available at: Accessed: Feb 8, 2002
  • 24
    Platz EA, Helzlsouer KJ. Selenium, zinc, and prostate cancer. Epidemiol Rev 2001; 23:93101.
  • 25
    National Cancer Institute (NCI) PDQ. Prevention of prostate cancer, vol. 2002, 2002.
  • 26
    Clark LC, Combs GF Jr, Turnbull BW, et al. Effects of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in patients with carcinoma of the skin. A randomized controlled trial. Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Study Group. JAMA 1996; 276:19571963.
  • 27
    The Alpha-Tocopherol BCCPSG. The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. The Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 1994; 330:10291035.
  • 28
    Strauss G, Dominioni L. Varese meeting report. Lung Cancer 1999; 23:171172.
  • 29
    Smith IE. Screening for lung cancer: Time to think positive [comment]. Lancet 1999; 354:8687.
  • 30
    Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, Hayes RB, et al. The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institute: History, organization, and status. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21:251272.
  • 31
    Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al. Early Lung Cancer Action Project: Overall design and findings from baseline screening [see comments]. Lancet 1999; 354:99105.
  • 32
    Swensen SJ, Jett JR, Sloan JA, et al. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose spiral computed tomography. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165:508513.
  • 33
    Lee TH, Brennan TA. Direct-to-consumer marketing of high-technology screening tests. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:529531.
  • 34
    Mahadevia PJ, Fleisher LA, Frick KD, et al. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: A decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 2003; 289: 313322.
  • 35
    Committee on technologies for the early detection of breast cancer. Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2001.
  • 36
    Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, et al. The natural history of breast carcinoma: What have we learned from screening? Cancer 1999; 86:449462.
  • 37
    Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38: 625651.
  • 38
    Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Costanza M, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: Update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 1997; 47:150153.
  • 39
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force update, 2002 release: Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, 2002.
  • 40
    Pisano ED, Zong S, Hemminger BM, et al. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging 1998; 11:193200.
  • 41
    Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, Hemminger BM, et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000; 7:266280.
  • 42
    Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:671677.