UICC workshop on the evaluation of screening programmes for cancer: Meeting held in Venice, Italy, on November 14‐16, 1983

Prorok, P. C.; Chamberlain, Jocelyn; Day, N E; Hakama, Matti; Ab, Miller

doi:10.1002/ijc.2910340102

Cited by 73 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Understanding of case-control studies of screening has increased substantially since we first considered this issue (Prorok et al, 1984). It is now recognized that different considerations apply to case-control studies used to evaluate screening when mortality is the preferred end-point (or when advanced disease is used as a substitute) than when incidence of disease is the end-point.…”

Section: Case-control Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…A full report on the workshop will be published elsewhere. In drawing our conclusions, we have incorporated the evidence previously available Day et al, 1986;Hakama et al, 1985;Prorok et al, 1984) as well as that presented at the workshop.We emphasize that screening, as considered in our reports, is the detection of unrecognized disease by the application of tests in the general population, or an important subsegment of that population. We have not evaluated medical surveillance or public education campaigns, except to the extent that they have an impact on screening.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Report on a workshop of the UICC project on evaluation of screening for cancer

Miller¹,

Chamberlain²,

Day³

et al. 1990

Intl Journal of Cancer

Self Cite

197

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the 5th report of the UICC Project on the Evaluation of Screening for Cancer. Previous reports were based on our evaluation of screening for individual sites or groups of sites. The present report is based on a workshop at which most of the sites were re-evaluated in the light of new information that had become available since we previously considered the sites (4 years for breast cancer to 7 years for cancer of the cervix) together with an evaluation of 4 sites not previously considered (melanoma, neuroblastoma, nasopharyngeal carcinoma and prostate cancer). We elected not to re-evaluate screening for lung, bladder and oral cancer (considered in 1984) and endometrial cancer (considered in 1985) as we were not aware of any new data that would have led us to reconsider our previous conclusion, that screening should not be considered as public health policy for these sites.The present report comprises a summary of the communications presented at the workshop, together with our conclusions on the state of the art of screening for the cancers considered. At the end of the report we summarize some advances in the methodology of the evaluation of screening. A full report on the workshop will be published elsewhere. In drawing our conclusions, we have incorporated the evidence previously available Day et al., 1986;Hakama et al., 1985;Prorok et al., 1984) as well as that presented at the workshop.We emphasize that screening, as considered in our reports, is the detection of unrecognized disease by the application of tests in the general population, or an important subsegment of that population. We have not evaluated medical surveillance or public education campaigns, except to the extent that they have an impact on screening. Our recommendations are, in general, related to the application of screening as public health policy, and the research that we feel should be conducted before such policies on screening are implemented. Further, we are largely concerned with organized programmes of screening, as described in our report on cervical cancer screening (Hakama et al., 1985). Breast cancer screeningRecent results from breast screening trials in Sweden, the UK and Canada were considered. Updated mortality data to December 1989 in the Swedish 2-county (WE) trial show that the relative risk (RR) of dying from breast cancer in the study group allocated to screening has remained around 0.7 since the first publication in 1985. The effects in each 10-year age-group are relatively unchanged, with no reduction in mortality in those aged 4 W 9 on entry. For women aged 50-69 on entry, the reduction in breast cancer mortality is approximately 40%. Death rates due to other causes among women with breast cancer were close in h e 2 study arms.Updated mortality data in the Malmo study show an increasing reduction in breast cancer mortality in the study arm in women aged 55-64 on entry, now approximately 20%. No reduction in breast cancer mortality is seen for women aged 45-54. Poor survival of patients with interval cancers in th...

show abstract

Section: Case-control Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Report on a workshop of the UICC project on evaluation of screening for cancer

Miller¹,

Chamberlain²,

Day³

et al. 1990

Intl Journal of Cancer

Self Cite

197

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, efficacy of early de-216 SANTI ET AL TOXICOLOGIC PATHOLOGY tection programs has not been complete in both sites (22,27). The inadequacy ofavailable screening tests, the unsatisfactory degree of compliance on the part of patients, as well as financial and organizational problems greatly limit the potential impact of screening programs for these two cancers.…”

Section: B) Early Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conclusion has been that for none of these sites screening can be recommended (27):Cancers of other sites fall in either one or both of the following two groups: 1) they are too rare to make early detection programs convenient from a cost-benefit and risk-effectiveness viewpoint, or 2) no tests of adequate diagnostic accuracy, which can be used on a large scale, are available for the diagnosis at a sufficiently early stage.…”

Section: B) Early Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Complementary Role of Primary Prevention, Early Detection, and Therapy in Our Fight Against Cancer

Santi¹,

Bruzzi²,

Parodi³

1987

Toxicol Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public health strategies for cancer control are determined by the epidemiological, clinical and biological characteristic of each cancer. Primary prevention is most easily implemented in cancers due to one or few factors. Secondary prevention is best suited for frequent cancers with a long preclinical, detectable phase. Therapy has to be relied upon in rare cancers of unknown etiology. A critical evaluation of the accomplishments ofthese three approaches shows that the potential role in cancer control ofearly detection and treatment is severely hampered by the high social and human costs, that are only partially counterbalanced by the limited effectiveness. As a consequence, primary prevention should be regarded as the key approach to cancer control, and efforts should be concentrated on studies concerning cancer etiology and on the implementation of preventive measures.

show abstract

“…Although large studies have shown that chest radiography and sputum sampling lead to earlier diagnosis of lung cancer, they have found no effect on mortality. 2 The apparent paradox is explained by statistical bias, which accounts for at least some of the higher survival rate in early stage disease. Suppose that an abdominal cancer was diagnosed incidentally during unrelated surgery and the patient refused treatment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Correction: Tanning with ultraviolet A sunbeds

1990

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UICC workshop on the evaluation of screening programmes for cancer: Meeting held in Venice, Italy, on November 14‐16, 1983

Cited by 73 publications

References 0 publications

Report on a workshop of the UICC project on evaluation of screening for cancer

Report on a workshop of the UICC project on evaluation of screening for cancer

The Complementary Role of Primary Prevention, Early Detection, and Therapy in Our Fight Against Cancer

Correction: Tanning with ultraviolet A sunbeds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About