Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principles of Screening for Cancer

  • Chapter
Oncology

Abstract

Screening is defined as testing for a condition when the person has no recognized signs or symptoms of that condition. The purpose of screening is not to merely detect a condition, but rather to help people live better or longer. This is an important distinction: the detection of earlier disease by itself is insufficient to justify a screening program. The program must additionally demonstrate that people live longer or better because of the earlier detection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Schwartz LA, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 2004;291:71–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hahn WC, Weinberg RA. Rules for making human tumor cells. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1593–1603.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Keyomarsi K, Tucker SL, Buchholz TA, et al. Cyclin E and survival in patients with breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1566–1575.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347(25):1999–2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ramaswamy S, Perou CM. DNA microarrays in breast cancer: the promise of personalised medicine. Lancet 2003;361:1576–1577.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 2002;359:909–919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Soost HJ, Lange HJ, Lehmacher W, et al. The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Acta Cytol 1991;35:8–14.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Benoit AG, Krepart GV, Lotocki RJ. Results of prior cytologic screening in patients with a diagnosis of Stage I carcinoma of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;148:690–694.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer B, et al. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:657–661.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. McNaughton-Collins M, Fowler FJ, Caubert J-F, et al. Psychological effects of a suspicious prostate cancer screening test followed by a benign biopsy result. Am J Med 2004;117:719–725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Elmore J, Barton M, Moceri V, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1089–1096.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ. Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:975–980.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and over-estimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1237–1243.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? JAMA 2000;283:2975–2978.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:1340–1342.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1672–1680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3S):21–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH, et al. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. Am J Prev Med 2004;26:56–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jemal A, Tiwani RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004;54:8–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER* Stat Database: Incidence: SEER 9 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2002 Sub (1973–2000). National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2003, based on the November 2002 submission.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2000. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2000, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Laara E, Day NE, Hakama M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organised screening programmes. Lancet 1987;1(8544):1247–1249.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Christopherson WM, Lundin FE Jr, Mendez WM, et al. Cervical cancer control: a study of morbidity and mortality trends over a twenty-one-year period. Cancer 1976;38:1357–1366.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Miller AB, Lindsay J, Hill GB. Mortality from cancer of the uterus in Canada and its relationship to screening for cancer of the cervix. Int J Cancer 1976;17:602–612.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Johannesson G, Geirsson G, Day N. The effect of mass screening in Iceland, 1965–1974, on the incidence and mortality of cervical carcinoma. Int J Cancer 1978;21:418–425.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sigurdsson K. Effect of organized screening on the risk of cervical cancer. Evaluation of screening activity in Iceland, 1964–1991. Int J Cancer 1993;54:563–570.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Benedet JL, Anderson GH, Matisic JP. A comprehensive program for cervical cancer detection and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1254–1259.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Aristizabal N, Cuello C, Correa P, et al. The impact of vaginal cytology on cervical cancer risks in Cali, Colombia. Int J Cancer 1984;34:5–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Clarke EA, Anderson TW. Does screening by “Pap” smears help prevent cervical cancer? A case-control study. Lancet 1979;2(8132):1–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. La Vecchia C, Franceschi S, Decarli A, et al. “Pap” smear and the risk of cervical neoplasia: quantitative estimates from a case-control study. Lancet 1984;2(8406):779–782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Herrero R, Brinton LA, Reeves WC, et al. Screening for cervical cancer in Latin America: a case-control study. Int J Epidemiol 1992;21:1050–1056.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Celentano DD, Klassen AC, Weisman CS, et al. Duration of relative protection of screening for cervical cancer. Prev Med 1989;18:411–422.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986;293(6548):659–664.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kleinman JC, Kopstein A. Who is being screened for cervical cancer? Am J Public Health 1981;71:73–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systemic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810–819.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hartmann KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Research and Quality, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  38. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, et al. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 5. AHCPR Publication No. 99-E010. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Research and Quality, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, et al. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ 2003;326(7392):733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Holowaty P, Miller AB, Rohan T, et al. Natural history of dysplasia of the uterine cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:252–258.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Nasiell K, Roger V, Nasiell M. Behavior of mild cervical dysplasia during long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1986;69:665–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nash JD, Burke TW, Hoskins WJ. Biologic course of cervical human papillomavirus infection. Obstet Gynecol 1987;69:160–162.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, et al. Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92(4 pt 2):727–735.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bosch FX, Manos, MM, Muñoz N, et al. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. International biological study on cervical cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:796–802.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Wallin KL, Wiklund F, Angström T, et al. Type-specific persistence of human papillomavirus DNA before the development of invasive cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1633–1638.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Alani RM, Münger K. Human papillomaviruses and associated malignancies. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:330–337.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, et al. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338:423–428.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Fox J, Remington P, Layde P, Klein F. The effect of hysterectomy on the risk of an abnormal screening Papanicolaou test result. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:1104–1109.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Raffle AE, Alden B, Quinn M, et al. Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modeling of cases and deaths prevented. BMJ 2003;326:901–905.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R, et al. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:293–299.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Schiffman M, Adrianza MF. ASCUC-LSIL Triage Study. Design, methods, and characteristics of trial participants. Acta Cytol 2000;44:726–742.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Sawaya GF. Should routine screening Papanicolaou smears be done for women older than 65 years? Arch Intern Med 2004;164:243–245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Fox J, Remington P, Layde P, et al. The effect of hysterectomy on the risk of an abnormal screening Papanicolaou test result. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:1104–1109.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Pearce KF, Haefner HK, Sarwar SF, et al. Cytopathological findings on vaginal Papanicolaou smears after hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1559–1562.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Cervical Cancer: Recommendations and Rationale. Accessed at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspscerv.htm on Feb. 29, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Harris R, Lohr KN. Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:917–929.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Barry MJ. Prostate-specific-antigen testing for early diagnosis of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2001;344:1373–1377.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States. JAMA 2003;289:1414–1420.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 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;347:781–789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 2001;166:1679–1683.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. American Urological Association (AUA). Oncology 2002;14:267–272.

    Google Scholar 

  63. American Cancer Society. ACS Cancer Detection Guidelines: Cancer-Related Checkup. Accessed at www.cancer.org on November 23, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  64. American Medical Association. Policy H-425.980 Screening and Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. Accessed at www.amaassn.org on November 23, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  65. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:915–916.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Periodic Health Examinations. Revision 5.6, August 2004. American Academy of Family Physicians. Accessed at www.aafp.org on November 23, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  67. American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 1997;126:480–484.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Ghafoor A, Jemal A, Ward E, Cokkinides V, Smith R, Thun M. Trends in breast cancer by race and ethnicity. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:342–355.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Jatoi I, Miller AB. Why is breast cancer mortality declining? Lancet Oncol 2003;4:251–254.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Barton MB, Harris R, Fletcher SW. Does this patient have breast cancer? JAMA 1999;282:1270–1280.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Harris R, Kinsinger LS. Routinely teaching breast self-examination is dead. What does this mean? J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1420–1421.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1445–1457.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168–175.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290:2129–2137.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1384–3193.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1373–1380.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282–290.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:369–375.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Fletcher SW, O’Malley MS, Bunce LA. Physicians’ abilities to detect lumps in silicone breast models. JAMA 1985;253:2224–2228.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Liberman L. Breast cancer screening with MRI: what are the data for patients at high risk? N Engl J Med 2004;351:497–500.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic Screening for Breast Cancer: The Health Insurance Plan Project and Its Sequelae, 1963–1986. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1644–1656.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347–360.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Harris R, Leininger L. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:539–547.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Pettinger M, et al. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:429–436.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Pettinger M, et al. Re: Short-interval follow-up mammography: are we doing the right thing? J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1175–1176.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Barton MB, Moore S, Polk S, Shtatland E, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:150–156.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Ernster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1546–1554.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Landenberger M. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer (Phila) 1982;49:751–758.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Page DL, Jensen RA. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: understanding the misunderstood stepchild. JAMA 1996;275:948–949.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Welch HG, Black WC. Using autopsy series to estimate the disease “reservoir” for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: how much more breast cancer can we find? Ann Intern Med 1997;127:1023–1028.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Wilkie H, Ballard-Barbash R. Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:953–958.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER* Stat Database: Mortality: All COD, Public-Use With State, Total U.S. (1969–2001). National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2004. Underlying mortality data provided by NCHS (www.cdc.gov/nchs).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER* Stat Database: Incidence: SEER 9 Regs Public-Use, Nov 2003 Sub (1973–2001). National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch, released April 2004, based on the November 2003 submission.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Weir HK, Thun MJ, Hankey BF, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1276–1299.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Pignone M, Rich M, Teustch SM, Berg AO, Lohr KN. Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:132–141.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Walsh JME, Terdiman JP. Colorectal cancer screening. Scientific review. JAMA 2003;289:1288–1296.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al. Randomized controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 1996;348:1472–1477.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing the mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Screening Study. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1365–1371.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP Jr, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:653–657.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Newcomb PA, Norfleet RG, Storer BE, Surawicz TS, Marcus PM. Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84:1572–1575.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Muller AD, Sonnerberg A. Prevention of colorectal cancer by flexible endoscopy and polypectomy: a case-control study among veterans. Arch Intern Med 1995;123:904–910.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Thiis-Everson E, Hoff GS, Sauar J, Langmark F, Majak BM, Vatn MH. Population-based surveillance by colonoscopy: effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer. Telemark Polyp Study I. Scand J Gastroenterol 1999;34:414–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, Ahnen DJ, Garewal H, Chejfec G. Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 2000;343:162–168.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, Larkin GN, Rogge JD, Ransohoff DF. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 2000;343:169–174.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2191–2200.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Lawrence SP, Ahnen DJ. Approach to the patient with colonic polyps. In: Rose BD (ed) UpToDate. Wellesley: UpToDate, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Dave S, Hui S, Kroenke K, Imperiale TF. Is the distal hyperplastic polyp a marker for proximal neoplasia? A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18:128–137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Gatto NM, Frucht H, Sundararajan V, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Neugut AI. Risk of perforation after colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy: a population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:230–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, Larkin GN, Rogge JD, Ransohoff DF. Using risk for advanced proximal colonic neoplasia to tailor endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2003;139:959–965.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Russell Harris MD, MPH (Professor)

  2. VA National Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Durham, NC, USA

    Linda S. Kinsinger MD, MPH (Assistant Director)

Authors
  1. Russell Harris MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda S. Kinsinger MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Alfred E. Chang MD (Hugh Cabot Professor of Surgery and Chief) (Hugh Cabot Professor of Surgery and Chief)

  2. Breast Oncology Program, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Daniel F. Hayes MD (Clinical Director) (Clinical Director)

  3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York University School of Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Harvey I. Pass MD (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head) (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head)

  4. Thoracic Oncology, New York University School of Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Harvey I. Pass MD (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head) (Professor and Chief of Thoracic Surgery and Head)

  5. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA

    Richard M. Stone MD (Associate Professor and Clinical Director) (Associate Professor and Clinical Director)

  6. Adult Leukemia Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

    Richard M. Stone MD (Associate Professor and Clinical Director) (Associate Professor and Clinical Director)

  7. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Research, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA, USA

    Patricia A. Ganz MD (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor) (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor)

  8. Schools of Public Health and Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Patricia A. Ganz MD (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor) (American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor, Director and Professor)

  9. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Timothy J. Kinsella MD (Vincent K. Smith Professor and Chairman) (Vincent K. Smith Professor and Chairman)

  10. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, WI, USA

    Joan H. Schiller MD (Melanie Heald Professor of Medical Oncology) (Melanie Heald Professor of Medical Oncology)

  11. Health Media Research Laboratory, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, USA

    Victor J. Strecher PhD, MPH (Professor and Director and Associate Director) (Professor and Director and Associate Director)

  12. Cancer Prevention and Control, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Victor J. Strecher PhD, MPH (Professor and Director and Associate Director) (Professor and Director and Associate Director)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Harris, R., Kinsinger, L.S. (2006). Principles of Screening for Cancer. In: Chang, A.E., et al. Oncology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31056-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-31056-8_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-24291-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-31056-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation