You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 276 No. 24, December 25, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA

Controversies in prostate cancer screening. Analogies to the early lung cancer screening debate

M. M. Collins and M. J. Barry
General Medicine Division, Medical Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114, USA.

The current debate regarding early detection and aggressive treatment of prostate cancer is fueled by the absence of controlled studies defining the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening, and by the lack of adequately powered trials demonstrating the benefit of curative treatment for early-stage prostate cancer. Pending the results of clinical trials in 10 to 15 years, advocates of early detection of prostate cancer with digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen have compared prostate cancer screening with the effective strategy of breast cancer screening, implying that prostate cancer screening should similarly reduce cancer mortality. They have also cited the high burden of disease, the acceptable operating characteristics of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen, a stage shift among cases detected by screening, and the theoretical curability of early-stage disease as sufficient reasons to proceed with screening. These arguments, however, are reminiscent of earlier arguments in favor of lung cancer screening with chest x-ray examination and sputum cytology, a practice ultimately proven ineffective in clinical trials. We reviewed published articles on lung and prostate cancer screening and identified many parallels. While prostate cancer screening may one day prove effective, analogies between the current prostate cancer screening controversy and the older lung cancer screening debate should inject some caution regarding widespread dissemination of prostate cancer screening without experimental evidence that such screening does more good than harm.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Estimating Long-term Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening in the Mayo CT Screening Study
McMahon et al.
Radiology 2008;248:278-287.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Educating African American Men about the Prostate Cancer Screening Dilemma: A Randomized Intervention.
Taylor et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:2179-2188.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Examining the Effects of False Positive Lung Cancer Screening Results on Subsequent Lung Cancer Screening Adherence
Ford et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12:28-33.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening
Boyle
Eur Respir J 2003;21:3S-15s.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cancer Surveillance Series: Interpreting Trends in Prostate Cancer—Part II: Cause of Death Misclassification and the Recent Rise and Fall in Prostate Cancer Mortality
Feuer et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1025-1032.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1996 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.