This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • 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  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Analogies to the Early Lung Cancer Screening Debate

Mary McNaughton Collins, MD; Michael J. Barry, MD

JAMA. 1996;276(24):1976-1979.

Abstract
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.

Author Affiliations
From the General Medicine Division, Medical Services, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Mass.

Footnotes
Presented in part at the Eastern American Federation for Clinical Research Regional Meeting, Boston, Mass, October 28, 1995.

Reprints: Michael J. Barry, MD, Medical Practices Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, 50 Staniford St, Ninth Floor, Boston, MA 02114.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Prostate Cancer Screening; Is This a Teachable Moment?
Brawley
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1295-1297.
FULL TEXT  

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  

Is Prostate Cancer Screening Analogous to Lung Cancer Screening?
Farkas et al.
JAMA 1997;277:1120-1120.
ABSTRACT  

Is Prostate Cancer Screening Analogous to Lung Cancer Screening?
Walsh
JAMA 1997;277:1121-1121.
ABSTRACT  

Is Prostate Cancer Screening Analogous to Lung Cancer Screening?
Petty
JAMA 1997;277:1120-1121.
ABSTRACT