Economics of cancer screening programs

References

• World Health Organization. The world health report, 2002: reducing risks, promoting health life. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Boyle P, d' Onofrio A, Maisonneuve P et al Measuring progress against cancer in Europe: has the 15% decline targeted for 2000 come about? Ann. Oncol 14, 1312–1325 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC. Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States. Cancer 97, 1528–1540 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Linos A, Roza E. Comparisons of cervical cancer screening programmes in the European Union. Eur J Can. 36,2260–2265 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McNaughton M, Barry MJ. Controversies in prostate cancer screening: analogies to the early lung cancer debate. JAMA276(24), 1976–1979 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• •Neat demonstration of how good intentions can over-ride scientific rigor in the pursuit of health improvement.
   Google Scholar
• Parkin DM, Moss SM. Lung cancer screening: improved survival but no reduction in deaths — the role of `overdiagnosis'. Cancer 89,2369–2376 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• •Clear exposition of biases inherent in screening trials which fail to use mortality as the end point.
   Google Scholar
• Elovainio L, Nieminen P, Miller AB. Impact of cancer screening on women's health. Int.j Cynecol Obstet. 58,137–147 (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Miller AB. The (in)efficiency of cervical screening in Europe. Eur. J Can. 38, 321–326 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• •Reviews the diversity of cervical screening protocols, making the point that associations between screening intensityand health gain are difficult to validate.
   Google Scholar
• Sasieni P, Adams J, Cuzick J. Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories. Br. Can. 89,88-93 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Raffle AE, Alden B, Quinn M, Babb PJ, Brett MT Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented. Br. Merl J 326,901–906 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence? JAMA 289(11), 1414–1420 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Neal DE, Leung HY, Powell PH, Hamdy PC, Donovan JL. Unanswered questions in screening for prostate cancer. Eur. Can. 36,1316–1321 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Etzioni R, Penson DP, Legler JM et al Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from US prostate cancer incidence trends. J Nat. Can. Inst. 94(13), 958–960 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Lu-Yao G, Albertson PC, Stanford JL, Stukel TA, Walker-Corkery ES, Barry MJ. A natural experiment examining the impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from the Seattle area and Connecticut. BE Merl J. 325,740–743 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Donovan JL, Frankel SJ, Neal DE, Hamdy PC. Screening for prostate cancer in the UK. BE Merl J. 323,763–764 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Smith R. The screening industry. BE Merl J326, (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Swensen SJ. Screening for cancer with computed tomography. BE Merl J. 326, 894–895 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Hillman BJ. CT screening: who benefits and who pays? Racliology228(1), 26–28 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J, Hershey JC, Asch DA. The influence of cost-effectiveness information on physician's cancer screening recommendations. Soc. Sc]. Merl 56,1727–1736 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Charatan E The great American mammography debate. BE Merl J. 324, 432 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Lantz PM, Booth KM. The social construction of the breast cancer epidemic Soc. Sc]. Merl 46(7), 907–918 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• •Using breast cancer as a case study, demonstrates how the existence of a screening program biases the judgements of screening subjects.
   Google Scholar
• Dickinson JA. Cervical screening: time to change the policy. Merl I Aus. 176, 547–550 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Chapman S. Fresh row over prostate screening. BE Medj 326,605 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Yamey G, Wilkes M. The PSA storm. BE Medj 324,431 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Ransohoff DF, McNaughton Collins M, Fowler FJ. Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback. An 7J. Merl 113,663–667 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• ••Well-argued demonstration as to why screening results are always interpreted positively, thereby encouraging compliance.
   Google Scholar
• Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355,129–134 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botha JL, Bray F, Sankila R, Parkin DM. Breast cancer incidence and mortality in 16 European countries. Bur J. Can. 39, 1718–1729 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Jatoi I, Miller AB. Why is breast-cancer mortality declining? Lancet Oncology 4, 251–254 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanks RG, Moss SM, McGahan CE, Quinn MJ, Babb PJ. Effect of NHS breast screening programme on mortality from breast cancer in England and Wales 1990–1998: comparison of observed with predicted mortality. BE Merl j321, 665–669 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Tabar L, Vital( B, Chen H-HT, Yen M-F, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomised controlled trials: organised mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91,1724–1731 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charatan E US panel finds insufficient evidence to support mammography. BE Merl 324,255 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Retsky M, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W Breast cancer screening: controversies and future directions. CUE Op. Obstet.Gynecol 15,1–8 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Annual review 2002. NHSBSP, Sheffield, UK. (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Thornton H. The screening debates: time for a broader approach? Eur. I Can. 39, 1807–1809 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Miller AB. The brave new world — what can we realistically expect to achieve through cancer control early in the new millenium? Chron. Dis. Can. 20(4), 139–150 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Cuzick J. Screening for cancer: future potential. Eur. Cancer 35 (14), 1925–1932 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Whynes DK, Neilson AR, Walker AR, Hardcastle JD. Faecal occult blood screening for colorectal cancer: is it cost-effective ? Health Econ.7, 21–29 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gyrd-Hansen D, Sogaard J, Kronborg O. Colorectal cancer screening: efficiency and effectiveness. Health Econ. 7, 9–20 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Crum CP, Abbott DW, Quade BJ. Cervical cancer screening: from the Papanicolaou smear to the vaccine era. I Cli. Oncol 21 (Suppl. 10), S224—S230 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Wolstenholme JL, Smith SJ, Whynes DK. The costs of treating breast cancer in the United Kingdom: implications for screening. Int. I Tech. Assess. Health. 14(2), 277–289 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial Investigators. Single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening to prevent colorectal cancer: baseline findings of a UK multicentre trial. Lancet359, 1291–1300 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar