This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Andrew Farkas, PhD; Dona Schneider, PhD, MPH; Kenneth B. Cummings, MD; W. Steven Ward, PhD
Cancer Institute of New Jersey New Brunswick, NJ

JAMA. 1997;277(14):1120.

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

To the Editor.

—Drs Collins and Barry¹ raise a number of important concerns about the use of screening for prostate cancer. Because the way in which questions are framed helps determine the techniques used to develop answers, we feel their concerns should be refocused. We believe 2 separate major questions need to be addressed: (1) Will screening for prostate cancer reduce morbidity, mortality, or both? (2) How aggressively should diagnosed prostate cancer be treated? Answers to the first question hinge on issues of cost-effectiveness. Answers to the second question hinge on issues of risk and effectiveness of treatment.

Collins and Barry conclude that caution is necessary "regarding widespread dissemination of prostate cancer screening without the experimental evidence that such screening does more good than harm."¹ We believe this statement confounds the 2 questions and could therefore impede the search for answers.

Whether to screen for prostate cancer is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

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