The Dubious Merits of Screening for Cancer of the Breast and Prostate

  • Andrew Thompson
  • Norman J. Temple

Abstract

In the previous chapter we questioned the value of statin drugs in dealing with coronary heart disease. This chapter will extend our skeptical reevaluation to screening and treatment procedures for breast and prostate cancer, two of the most prominent cancers in First World countries. Massive screening programs have been instituted for each, and these programs have been strongly promoted by health authorities, politicians, movie stars, and many other prominent persons. It is unorthodox, if not blasphemous, to take a contrary public stance. However, one important item has been overlooked in this juggernaut campaign. The research that has been done leaves serious question marks as to the value of screening for these cancers.

Keywords

Placebo Burning Fatigue Catheter Estrogen 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

Part I: Breast Cancer

  1. 1.
    Thornton H (1998). Breast cancer screening. Lancet 351:145Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CDC_(1994). Death from breast cancer — United States, 1991. JAMA 271:1395.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hakama M, Kaija H, et al. (1995). Aggressiveness of screen-detected breast cancers. Lancet 314: 221–223.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nab HW, Wim CJ, et al. (1994). Changes in long term prognosis for breast cancer in a Dutch cancer registry. BMJ 309: 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomas BA (1995). Population breast cancer screening: theory, practice, and service implications. Lancet 345: 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Feuer EJ, Lap-Ming W ( 1992). How much of the recent rise in breast cancer incidence can be explained by increases in mammography utilization? Am J Epidemiol 136:1423–1436.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolata G (February 26, 1993). Do mammograms aid women in 40s? New York Times: 1A, 4A.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerlikowske K (1997). Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr No. 22: 79–86.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kattlove H, Alessandro L, et al. (1995). Benefits and costs of screening and treatment for early breast cancer. JAMA 273: 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis DL (1994). Mammographic screening. JAMA 271: 152–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devitt JE (1994). Breast cancer: have we missed the forest because of the tree? Lancet 344: 734–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shapiro S (1992). Periodic breast cancer screening in seven foreign countries. Cancer 69(supp 7): 1919–1924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gotzsche PC, Olsen O (2000). Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justificable? Lancet 355: 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller AB, To T, et al. (2000). Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: 13-Year Results of a Randomized Trial in Women Aged 50–59 Years. J Nat! Cancer Inst 92: 1490–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elmore JG, Barton MB, et al. (1998). Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 338:1089–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mushlin AI, Fintor L (1992). Is screening for breast cancer cost-effective? Cancer 69(suppl 7): 1957–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    CQ Staff (February 7, 1998). How each agency and department would fare under Clinton budget. CQ: 297–314.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eddy, DM (1989). Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 111: 389–399.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K (1997). Cost-effectiveness of extending mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 127: 955–964.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerlikowske K. Grady D. et al. (1995). Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 213: 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Andersson I, Aspergren K. et al. (1988). Mammographie screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographie screening trial. BMJ 297: 943–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sickles EA, Kopans DB (1995). Mammographie screening for women aged 40 to 49 years: the primary care practitioner’s dilemma. Ann Intern Med 122: 534–538.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Woolf SH, Lawrence RS (1997). Lessons from the consensus panel on mammography screening. JAMA 278: 2105–2108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Awuonda M (1996). Swedish county criticized for halting breast screening. Lancet 347: 608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Awuonda M (1996). Swedes in volte-face on breast screening. Lancet 347: 822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Triozi PL (1994). Autologous bone marrow and peripheral blood progenitor transplant for breast cancer. Lancet 344: 418–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peters WP, Rogers MC (1994). Variation in approval by insurance companies of coverage for autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 330: 473–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Daniels N, Sabin JE (March–April, 1998). Last chance therapies and managed care. Hastings Center Report: 27–41.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    v. Amerongen D (2000). (Letter to the editor). Insurance payments for bone marrow transplantation in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 342: 1138–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Part II: Prostate Cancer

  1. 30.
    Woolf SH ( 1997). Should we screen for prostate cancer? BMJ 314: 989–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 31.
    Frydenberg M, Stricker PD, (1997). Prostate cancer diagnosis and management. Lancet 349: 1681–1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 32.
    Zinner N R (1991). In: Dollinger M, Rosenbaum EH, Cable G, eds. Everyone’s guide to cancertherapy. New York: Andrews and McNeil.Google Scholar
  4. 33.
    Early prostate cancer best left alone — treatment riskier than cancer. July 1993. Health Facts: 1, 4.Google Scholar
  5. 34.
    Alexander T (September 20, 1993). One man’s tough choices on prostrate cancer. Fortune: 86–99.Google Scholar
  6. 35.
    Cupp M R, Oesterling JE (1993). Prostate-specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasonography: their roles in diagnosing early prostate cancer. Mayo Clinic Proc 68: 297–306.Google Scholar
  7. 36.
    Edelstein R A, Babayan RK (April 15, 1993). Managing prostate cancer, Part I: Localized Disease. Hospital Practice: 61–68, 70, 75–81.Google Scholar
  8. 37.
    Brawer M K (1993). The diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma. Cancer 71: 899–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 38.
    National Cancer Institute (March 4, 1994). PDQ state-of-the-art cancer treatment information: prostate cancer.Google Scholar
  10. 39.
    Mulley AG, Barry MJ (1998). Controversy in managing patients with prostate cancer. BMJ 316: 1919–1920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 40.
    Grady D (May 6,1999). New method gauges risk of prostate cancer relapse. International Herald Tribune.Google Scholar
  12. 41.
    Hoffman D (September 27, 1998). Cold War*s wastes lie buried in Russia. Register-Guard, Eugene, OR: 14A–15A.Google Scholar
  13. 42.
    CQ_Staff (February 7, 1998). How each agency and department would fare under Clinton budget. CQ: 297–314.Google Scholar
  14. 43.
    Johansson J-E, Andersson S-O, et al. (1989). Natural history of localized prostatic cancer. Lancer 1:799–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 44.
    Johansson J-E, Hohmberg L, et al. (1997). Fifteen year survival in prostate cancer: a prospective, population-based study in Sweden. JAMA 277: 467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 45.
    Chodak GW (1994). The role of watchful waiting in the management of localized prostate cancer. J Urology 152: 1766–1772.Google Scholar
  17. 46.
    Graversen PH, Nielsen KT (1990). Radical prostatectomy versus expectant primary treatment in stages I and II. Urology 36: 493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 47.
    Greenlee RT, Murray S, et al. (2000). Cancer Statistics. Ca 50: 7–33.Google Scholar
  19. 48.
    Fleming C, Wasson JH, et al. (1993). A decision analysis of alternative treatment strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 269: 2650–2658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 49.
    Whitmore WF (1993). Management of clinically localized prostatic cancer: An unresolved problem. JAMA 269: 2676–2677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 50.
    Morris K (1997). UK experts advise against prostate cancer screening. Lancet 349: 477.Google Scholar
  22. 51.
    Kolata G (February 13, 1997). Prostate study lacks volunteers. International Herald Tribune: 11.Google Scholar
  23. 52.
    Dearnaly DP, Melia J (1997). Early prostate cancer — to treat or not? Lancet 349: 892–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 53.
    Collins MM, Barry MJ (1996). Controversies in prostate cancer screening. JAMA 276:1976–1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 54.
    Raffle AE (1996). Trust me, I’m a scientist: Will urologists set a lead for geneticists to follow? Lancet 347: 883–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 55.
    Welch HG, Schwartz, LM, Woloshin S (2000). Are increasing 5-year survival rates evidence of success against cancer? JAMA 283: 2975–2978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 56.
    Bailar JC. Gornik HL (1997). Cancer undefeated. N Engl J Med 336: 1569–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Thompson
  • Norman J. Temple

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations