Skip to main content
Log in

Conference report: Research questions concerning prostate cancer screening

  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Parker SL, Tong T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 1996. CA Cancer J Clin 1996; 46: 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Woolf SH. Current concepts: Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen-an examination of the evidence. N Engl J Med1995; 333: 1401–5.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Prorok P. The National Cancer Institute Multi-Screening Trial. Can J Oncol 1994; 4(Suppl): 98–101.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, Kramer BS, Cornett JE. Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian screening trial of the National Cancer Institute. J Urol 1994; 152: 1905–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schroder FH. The European Screening Study for Prostate Cancer. Can J Oncol 1994; 4(Suppl): 102–5.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gann PH, Hennekens CH, Stampfer MF. A prospective evaluation of plasma prostate-specific antigen for detection of prostate cancer. JAMA 1995; 25: 289–94.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Richie JP, Catalona WJ, Ahmann FR, et al. Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology 1993; 42: 365–74.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Lu-Yao G, et al. Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. Urology 1993; 42: 622–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lu-Yao GL, Potosky AL, Albertsen PC, et al. Follow-up prostate cancer treatments after radical prostatectomy: a population based study. JNCI1996; 88: 166–73.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial: a randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy versus expectant management for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1994; 152: 1910–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stephenson J. Prostate cancer gene hunters track their quarry. [Medical News and Perspectives]. JAMA 1996; 276: 861–2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP Jr, Weiss NS. A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer.N Engl J Med1992; 326: 653–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Friedman GD, Hiatt RA, Quesenberry CP Jr, Selby JV. Case-control study of screening for prostatic cancer by digital rectal examinations. Lancet 1991; 337: 1526–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cramer DW. The role of cervical cytology in the declining morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer. Cancer1974; 34: 2018–27.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lang CA, Ransohoff DF. Fecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: Is mortality reduced by chance selection for screening colonoscopy? JAMA 1994; 271: 1011–3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lieberman DA. Cost-effectiveness model for colon cancer screening. Gastroenterology 1995; 109: 1781–90.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bhattacharya I, Sack E. Screening colonoscopy: the cost of common sense. Lancet 1996; 347: 1744–5.

    Google Scholar 

  18. McNaughton Collins M, Barry MJ. Controversies in prostate cancer screening: Analogies to the early lung cancer screening debate. JAMA 1996; 276: 1976–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McNaughton Collins, M., Fletcher, R.H. Conference report: Research questions concerning prostate cancer screening. Cancer Causes Control 8, 668–671 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018410817024

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018410817024

Keywords

Navigation