Cancer Screening: The Clash of Science and Intuition
- 1 February 2009
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Annual Reviews in Annual Review of Medicine
- Vol. 60 (1) , 125-137
- https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.med.60.101107.134802
Abstract
The concept of early detection of cancer holds great promise and intuitive appeal. However, powerful biases can mislead clinicians when evaluating the efficacy of screening tests by clinical observation alone. Selection bias, lead-time bias, length-biased sampling, and overdiagnosis are counterintuitive concepts with critical implications for early detection efforts. This article explains these biases and other common confounders in cancer screening. The most direct and reliable way to avoid being led astray by intuitions is through the use of randomized controlled trials.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Design of Cancer Screening Trials/Randomized Trials for Evaluation of Cancer ScreeningWorld Journal of Surgery, 2006
- Increasing Incidence of Thyroid Cancer in the United States, 1973-2002JAMA, 2006
- Assessing the impact of screening mammography: breast cancer incidence and mortality rates in Connecticut (1943–2002)Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2006
- Skin biopsy rates and incidence of melanoma: population based ecological studyBMJ, 2005
- The science of early detectionUrologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 2004
- Enthusiasm for Cancer Screening in the United StatesJAMA, 2004
- Lung Cancer Mortality in the Mayo Lung Project: Impact of Extended Follow-upJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2000
- CANCER SCREENINGHematology/Oncology Clinics of North America, 2000
- Are Increasing 5-Year Survival Rates Evidence of Success Against Cancer?JAMA, 2000
- Screening for lung cancer. A critique of the mayo lung projectCancer, 1991