Cancer screening reform needed

November 21, 2011

Since the National Cancer Institute developed the first guidelines on mammography screening over thirty years ago, advocacy and professional groups have developed guidelines focused on who should be screened, instead of communicating clearly the risks and benefits of screening, according to a commentary by Michael Edward Stefanek, Ph.D., the associate vice president of collaborative research in the office of the vice president at Indiana University, published online Nov. 21 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Stefanek writes that too much time has been spent debating guidelines, instead of ongoing debates about who should be screened. He advocates educating people about the potential harms and benefits of screening.

The U.S. Preventative Task Force (USPTS) recommendations against routine mammography for women aged 40-49 sparked controversy followed by more studies on screening, notably a Norwegian study comparing cancer-specific mortality in screened and unscreened women, which found a small and statistically insignificant breast cancer mortality reduction in the screened group. Stefanek writes that "similar ambiguity" exists for prostate cancer screening, noting that the two largest and high quality studies gave conflicting results, with the USPTS recently issuing recommendations against PSA testing in healthy men. The National Lung Cancer Screening Trial reported a 20% relative decrease in lung cancer deaths among subjects undergoing CT scans compared with those receiving chest x-rays, but with the majority of positive results being false positives. Overall this situation leads Stefanek to the conclusion that despite all the analyses to date, we are on unsteady ground when we attempt to dictate who should and shouldn't undergo screening.

Stefanek poses the question of what we have taught the public about cancer screening, since the public invariably seems to feel that screening is almost always a good idea and that finding cancer early is the key to saving lives. He cautions that the public may persist in holding a biased view of screening if we continue to engage in guideline debates. Furthermore, new technologies, despite the potential for combating cancer, will likely result in false positives, false negatives, overtreatment, and under treatment, and incur important patient harms.

Stefanek writes that we have failed to truly educate the public about cancer screening, and that our approach to screening needs to be reformed. He says engaging patients in shared decision making, tracking the number of patients provided with information related to the harms and benefits of screening instead of just those who are screened, and uniting scientific and advocacy organizations with primary care provider organizations in this effort to inform about costs and benefits is needed. "If we agree on the premise that individuals are supposed to be informed before making medical decisions, including decisions about cancer screening, then the time and talent of such groups could be much better spent educating the public on the harms and benefits of cancer screening," Stefanek writes. "Screening can be very beneficial (or not), and screening messages should reflect the complexity of this decision."
Contact: 812-856-2513,

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Related Cancer Screening Articles from Brightsurf:

State-level lung cancer screening rates not aligned with lung cancer burden in the US
A new study reports that state-level lung cancer screening rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden.

New analysis finds lung cancer screening reduces rates of lung cancer-specific death
Low-dose CT screening methods may prevent one death per 250 at-risk adults screened, according to a meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled clinical trials of lung cancer screening.

The benefits of a prostate cancer screening tool
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (mpMRIp) is a promising tool for diagnosing prostate cancer, and prior to its availability, detection relied on clinical exams and prostate specific antigen screening.

American Cancer Society updates guideline for cervical cancer screening
An updated cervical cancer screening guideline from the American Cancer Society reflects the rapidly changing landscape of cervical cancer prevention in the United States, calling for less and more simplified screening.

Mailed colorectal cancer screening kits may save costs while increasing screening rates
New research indicates that mailing colorectal cancer screening kits to Medicaid enrollees is a cost-effective way to boost screening rates.

Lung cancer screening in primary care
The benefits of routine lung cancer screenings have been hotly debated in the medical community.

New tech takes radiation out of cancer screening
Researchers have developed a new, inexpensive technology that could save lives and money by routinely screening women for breast cancer without exposure to radiation.

Cancer screening among women prescribed opioids
US women who take prescription opioids are no less likely to receive key cancer screenings when compared to women who are not prescribed opioids.

Cervical cancer screening saves lives
Three-year interval in screening for cervical cancer is as effective as annual checkups, study finds.

Aspirin before at-home colorectal cancer screening test didn't significantly improve ability to detect cancer precursors
Some observational studies have suggested that taking aspirin before undergoing colorectal cancer screening with a fecal immunochemical test for blood in stool might improve the ability of the test to detect cancer precursors.

Read More: Cancer Screening News and Cancer Screening Current Events is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to