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. 289 No. 18, May 14, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (3)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Lung Cancer
 •Pulmonary Diseases
 •Pulmonary Diseases, Other
 •Radiologic Imaging
 •Diagnosis
 •Computed Tomography
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Mahadevia and colleagues1 concluded that it is probably not cost-effective to use helical CT to screen for lung cancer. This conclusion is based on hypothetical models with many assumptions. Given the high costs of treating lung cancer,2 I have argued that screening, or at least case finding, should take place in patients at highest risk, ie, smokers with airflow obstruction.3 It has been reported that the presence of airflow obstruction increases the likelihood of lung cancer by 4- to 6-fold with all other factors being equal.4

Although previous studies in the mid 1970s did not show a reduction in cancer mortality, the screened group did have improved survival. Strauss5 has criticized several inadequacies of the study design and conclusions.

In a prospective study in a community hospital, patients at highest risk (defined as heavy smoking and airflow obstruction, or an occupational or family history of lung . . . [Full Text of this Article]



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

RELATED ARTICLES

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer
Jerome Reich
JAMA. 2003;289(18):2357.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer
Thomas N. Chirikos, Todd Hazelton, Melvyn Tockman, and Robert Clark
JAMA. 2003;289(18):2358.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Lung Cancer—Reply
Parthiv J. Mahadevia and Neil R. Powe
JAMA. 2003;289(18):2358-2359.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Lung Cancer Screening With Helical Computed Tomography in Older Adult Smokers: A Decision and Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Parthiv J. Mahadevia, Lee A. Fleisher, Kevin D. Frick, John Eng, Steven N. Goodman, and Neil R. Powe
JAMA. 2003;289(3):313-322.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening Strategies for Early Detection of Lung Cancer: The Time Is Now
Thomas L. Petty
JAMA. 2000;284(15):1977-1980.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2003 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.