Advertisement

Screening for Cervical, Prostate, and Breast Cancer

Interpreting the Evidence
      Cancer screening is an important component of prevention and early detection in public health and clinical medicine. The evidence for cancer screening, however, is often contentious. A description and explanation of disagreements over the evidence for cervical, breast, and prostate screening may assist physicians, policymakers, and citizens faced with screening decisions and suggest directions for future screening research. There are particular issues to be aware of in the evidence base for each form of screening, which are summarized in this paper. Five tensions explain existing conflicts over the evidence: (1) data from differing contexts may not be comparable; (2) screening technologies affect evidence quality, and thus evidence must evolve with changing technologies; (3) the quality of evidence of benefit varies, and the implications are contested; (4) evidence about harm is relatively new, there are gaps in that evidence, and there is disagreement over what it means; and (5) evidence about outcomes is often poorly communicated. The following principles will assist people to evaluate and use the evidence: (1) attend closely to transferability; (2) consider the influence of technologies on the evidence base; (3) query the design of meta-analyses; (4) ensure harms are defined and measured; and (5) improve risk communication practices. More fundamentally, there is a need to question the purpose of cancer screening and the values that inform that purpose, recognizing that different stakeholders may value different things. If implemented, these strategies will improve the production and interpretation of the methodologically challenging and always-growing evidence for and against cancer screening.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Bretthauer M.
        • Kalager M.
        Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer.
        Br J Surg. 2013; 100: 55-65https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.8995
        • Moyer V.A.
        Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 120-134https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00459
        • Gershon-Cohen J.
        • Berger S.
        Detection of breast cancer by periodic X-ray examinations: a five-year survey.
        JAMA. 1961; 176: 1114-1116https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1961.63040260015013a
        • Fahey M.T.
        • Irwig L.
        • Macaskill P.
        Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy.
        Am J Epidemiol. 1995; 141: 680-689
        • International Agency for Research on Cancer.
        Cervix Cancer Screening.
        IARC Press, Lyon, France2005
        • Raffle A.E.
        • Alden B.
        • Quinn M.
        • Babb P.J.
        • Brett M.T.
        Outcomes of screening to prevent cancer: analysis of cumulative incidence of cervical abnormality and modelling of cases and deaths prevented.
        BMJ. 2003; 326: 901https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7395.901
        • Ostor A.
        Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review.
        Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1993; 12: 186https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-199304000-00018
        • McCredie M.R.E.
        • Sharples K.J.
        • Paul C.
        • et al.
        Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9: 425-434https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7
        • Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
        Cervical screening in Australia 2010-2011.
        2013
        • Kyrgiou M.
        • Arbyn M.
        • Martin-Hirsch P.
        • Paraskevaidis E.
        Increased risk of preterm birth after treatment for CIN.
        BMJ. 2012; 345: e5847https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5847
        • Roobol M.J.
        • Kerkhof M.
        • Schroder F.H.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer mortality reduction by prostate-specific antigen-based screening adjusted for nonattendance and contamination in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).
        Eur Urol. 2009; 56: 584-591https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.07.018
        • Andriole G.L.
        • Crawford E.D.
        • Grubb 3rd, R.L.
        • et al.
        Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1310-1319https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0810696
        • Schröder F.H.
        • Hugosson J.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • et al.
        Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 981-990https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1113135
      1. Saenger A. PSA standardization. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research; 2013. http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/articles/hottopics/2009-10b-psa.html.

        • Harris R.
        • Lohr K.N.
        Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 917-929https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-137-11-200212030-00014
        • Loeb S.
        • Chan D.W.
        • Sokoll L.
        • et al.
        Prostate specific antigen assay standardization bias could affect clinical decision making.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 1959-1962https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.07.036
        • Thompson I.M.
        • Pauler D.K.
        • Goodman P.J.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 2239-2246https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031918
        • Ilic D.
        • Neuberger M.M.
        • Djulbegovic M.
        • Dahm P.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (CD004720): 1
        • Welch H.G.
        • Schwartz L.M.
        • Woloshin S.
        Prostate-specific antigen levels in the United States: implications of various definitions for abnormal.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97: 1132-1137https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji205
        • Welch H.G.
        • Albertsen P.C.
        Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101: 1325-1329https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp278
        • Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening.
        The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.
        Lancet. 2012; 380: 1778-1786https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0
        • Nelson H.D.
        • Tyne K.
        • Naik A.
        • Bougatsos C.
        • Chan B.K.
        • Humphrey L.
        Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 727-737https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009
      2. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention Volume 7: Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon: IARC Press; 2002.

        • Gøtzsche P.
        • Nielsen M.
        Screening for breast cancer with mammography.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (CD001877)
        • Elmore J.G.
        • Armstrong K.
        • Lehman C.D.
        • Fletcher S.W.
        Screening for breast cancer.
        JAMA. 2005; 293: 1245-1256https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.10.1245
        • Autier P.
        • Esserman L.
        • Flowers C.
        • Houssami N.
        Breast cancer screening: the questions answered.
        Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012; 9: 599-605https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.126
        • Biesheuvel C.
        • Barratt A.
        • Howard K.
        • Houssami N.
        • Irwig L.
        Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review.
        Lancet Oncol. 2007; 8: 1129-1138https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70380-7
        • Berrington de
        • Gonzalez A.
        Estimates of the potential risk of radiation-related cancer from screening in the UK.
        J Med Screen. 2011; 18: 163-164https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2011.011073
        • Moyer V.A.
        Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160: 271-281https://doi.org/10.7326/M13-2747
        • Hakama M.
        • Chamberlain J.
        • Day N.
        • Miller A.
        • Prorok P.
        Evaluation of screening programs for gynecological cancer.
        Br J Cancer. 1985; 52: 669-673https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1985.241
        • International Agency for Research on Cancer.
        Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies.
        BMJ. 1986; 293: 659-664
        • Ronco G.
        • Dillner J.
        • Elfström K.M.
        • et al.
        Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials.
        Lancet. 2014; 383: 524-532https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7
        • Moyer V.A.
        U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156: 880-891https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00424
        • Sankaranarayanan R.
        • Nene B.M.
        • Shastri S.S.
        • et al.
        HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 1385-1394https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0808516
        • Vesco K.K.
        • Whitlock E.P.
        • Eder M.
        • et al.
        Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Oregon Evidence-based Practice Centre, Portland, OR2011
      3. Cancer Research UK. Cancer mortality statistics. www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/mortality/.

        • Ferlay J.
        • Shin H.R.
        • Bray F.
        • Forman D.
        • Mathers C.
        • Parkin D.M.
        Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008.
        Int J Cancer. 2010; 127: 2893-2917https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.25516
        • Schiffman M.
        • Castle P.E.
        • Jeronimo J.
        • Rodriguez A.C.
        • Wacholder S.
        Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer.
        Lancet. 2007; 370: 890-907https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61416-0
        • Sasieni P.
        • Castanon A.
        • Cuzick J.
        Effectiveness of cervical screening with age: population based case-control study of prospectively recorded data.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b2968https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2968
        • Bastos J.
        • Peleteiro B.
        • Gouveia J.
        • Coleman M.P.
        • Lunet N.
        The state of the art of cancer control in 30 European countries in 2008.
        Int J Cancer. 2010; 126: 2700-2715
        • Vesco K.K.
        • Whitlock E.P.
        • Eder M.P.
        • Burda B.U.
        • Senger C.A.
        • Lutz K.M.
        Risk factors and other epidemiologic considerations for cervical cancer screening: a narrative review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 698-705https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-10-201111150-00377
        • Corbelli J.
        • Borrero S.
        • Bonnema R.
        • et al.
        Differences among primary care physicians’ adherence to 2009 ACOG guidelines for cervical cancer screening.
        J Womens Health. 2014; 23: 397-403https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2013.4475
        • Henderson J.T.
        • Yu J.M.
        • Harper C.C.
        • Sawaya G.F.
        U.S. clinicians’ perspectives on less frequent routine gynecologic examinations.
        Prev Med. 2014; 62: 49-53https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.004
        • Meyerson B.E.
        • Crosby R.A.
        • Van Der Pol B.J.
        • Zimet G.D.
        Thinking differently about cervical cancer screening in high-risk populations.
        Am J Prev Med. 2012; 43: 221-224https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.021
        • Perkins R.B.
        • Anderson B.L.
        • Sheinfeld Gorin S.
        • Schulkin J.A.
        Challenges in cervical cancer prevention: a survey of U.S. obstetrician-gynecologists.
        Am J Prev Med. 2013; 45: 175-181https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.019
      4. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approves first human papillomavirus test for primary cervical cancer. 2014. www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm394773.htm.

      5. American Academy of Family Physicians. AAFP, USPSTF issue final recommendation against routine PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. AAFP Breaking News 2012. www.aafp.org/news-now/health-of-the-public/20120522psascreenrec.html.

        • Wallner L.P.
        • Jacobsen S.J.
        Prostate-specific antigen and prostate cancer mortality: a systematic review.
        Am J Prev Med. 2013; 45: 318-326https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.04.015
        • Jemal A.
        • Ward E.
        • Wu X.
        • Martin H.J.
        • McLaughlin C.C.
        • Thun M.J.
        Geographic patterns of prostate cancer mortality and variations in access to medical care in the United States.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005; 14: 590-595https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0522
        • Chapman S.
        • Barratt A.
        • Stockler M.
        Let Sleeping Dogs Lie? What Men Should Know before Getting Tested for Prostate Cancer.
        Sydney University Press, Sydney2010
        • Chou R.
        • Croswell J.M.
        • Dana T.
        • et al.
        Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 762-771https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00375
      6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; 2012. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/prostatecancerscreening/prostatefinalrs.htm.

        • Lim L.S.
        • Sherin K.
        Screening for prostate cancer in U.S. men: ACPM position statement on preventive practice.
        Am J Prev Med. 2008; 34: 164-170https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.10.003
      7. NHMRC. Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Testing in Asymptomatic Men. Canberra: NHMRC; 2014. www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/men4.

        • Zhu X.
        • Albertsen P.C.
        • Andriole G.L.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • Schroder F.H.
        • Vickers A.J.
        Risk-based prostate cancer screening.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 652-661https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.029
        • Sokoll L.
        • Chan D.
        Total, free, and complexed PSA: analysis and clinical utility.
        J Clin Ligand Assay. 1998; 21: 171-179
        • Andriole G.
        • Djavan B.
        • Fleshner N.
        • Schroder F.
        The case for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen.
        Eur Urol Suppl. 2006; 5: 737-745https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eursup.2006.06.013
        • Moss S.M.
        • Cuckle H.
        • Evans A.
        • Johns L.
        • Waller M.
        • Bobrow L.
        Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2006; 368: 2053-2060https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69834-6
        • Berry D.A.
        • Cronin K.A.
        • Plevritis S.K.
        • et al.
        Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1784-1792https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050518
        • Lord S.
        • Lei W.
        • Craft P.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer.
        Eur J Cancer. 2007; 43: 1905-1917https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.06.007
        • Ciatto S.
        • Houssami N.
        • Bernardi D.
        • et al.
        Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14: 583-589https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7
        • Royce T.J.
        • Hendrix L.H.
        • Stokes W.A.
        • Allen I.M.
        • Chen R.C.
        Cancer screening rates in individuals with different life expectancies.
        JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174: 1558-1565https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3895
        • Kerlikowske K.
        Epidemiology of ductal carcinoma in situ.
        J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 2010: 139-141https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq027
        • Irwig L.
        • Houssami N.
        • Armstrong B.
        • Glasziou P.
        Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer.
        BMJ. 2006; 332: 678-679https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7543.678
        • Han P.K.J.
        • Coates R.J.
        • Uhler R.J.
        • Breen N.
        Decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening National Health Interview Survey, 2000.
        Am J Prev Med. 2006; 30: 394-404https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.006
        • Hoffman R.M.
        • Elmore J.G.
        • Fairfield K.M.
        • Gerstein B.S.
        • Levin C.A.
        • Pignone M.P.
        Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions.
        Am J Prev Med. 2014; 47: 251-259https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.04.011
        • Rosenbaum L.
        Invisible risks, emotional choices—mammography and medical decision making.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1549-1552https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1409003
        • Finkel A.M.
        Perceiving others’ perceptions of risk.
        Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008; 1128: 121-137https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.013
        • Sjöberg L.
        The allegedly simple structure of experts’ risk perception: an urban legend in risk research.
        Sci Technol Human Values. 2002; 27: 443-459https://doi.org/10.1177/016224302236176
        • Shaw D.
        • Elger B.
        Evidence-based persuasion: an ethical imperative.
        JAMA. 2013; 309: 1689-1690https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.2179