Cancer screening explained

Cancer screening
Purpose:detection of cancer prior to onset of symptoms (via several tests/imaging)

The objective of cancer screening is to detect cancer before symptoms appear, involving various methods such as blood tests, urine tests, DNA tests, and medical imaging.[1] [2] The purpose of screening is early cancer detection, to make the cancer easier to treat and extending life expectancy.[3] In 2019, cancer was the second leading cause of death globally; more recent data is pending due to the COVID-19 pandemic.[4]

Universal screening, also known as mass screening or population screening, involves the screening of individuals within certain age and gender groups, aiming to screen the population for particular cancers or cancer risk factors.[5] Selective screening, also known as targeted screening, identifies individuals with a higher risk of developing cancer, including individuals with a family history (genetic risk) of cancer or individuals engaging in high-risk behaviors such as smoking.

The act of cancer screening plays a pivotal role in both preventing cancer and providing early diagnosis, contributing to increased success rates in treatment and ultimately extending life expectancy.[6] Controversy arises when it is not clear if the benefits of the screening outweigh the risks associated with the screening procedure, as well as the subsequent diagnostic tests and cancer treatments.[7] Cancer screening is susceptible to producing both false negative and false positive results, underlining the importance of considering the possible errors in the screening process.[8] Additionally, cancer screening can lead to overtreatment if the screening identifies a tumor that is ultimately benign (non-cancerous).

Medical uses

Early detection of cancer is the main advantage of cancer screening, it gives the patient a better chance of surviving or even preventing the cancer. Screening can also help relieve the public burden cancer has on society both financially and socially. The EU's Beating Cancer Plan wishes to make sure that 90% of the population with sufficient risk is screened for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer; around 1.3 million people die from cancer in the EU each year.

Risks

Several factors are considered to determine whether the benefits outweigh the associated risks and costs of cancer screening. Cancer screening trials have demonstrated only a minimal decline in cancer related deaths, and the evaluation of risks to benefits remains an important in determining the overall effectiveness of the cancer screening program.[9]

Attendance

To detect cancer at an early stage, all eligible people need to participate in screenings. However, certain barriers affect attendance rates among disadvantaged individuals, such as those on low incomes, those with mental health disorders, and ethnic minorities.[16]

A 2019 study indicated that individuals with mental health disorders are nearly 25% less likely to attend cancer screening appointments.[17] Among them, women with schizophrenia have the lowest screening rates. Even those with common mood disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are less likely to attend compared the general population. The lower attendance rates are believed to contribute to the earlier mortality of people with mental health disorders.

In 2019, a study indicated that women with mental health disorders in Northern Ireland were less likely to participate in screening for breast cancer in comparison to women without mental health disorders.[18] The documented attendance rate persisted even after accounting for variables, such as marital status and social deprivation.

A study published in 2020 reported that individuals from minority ethnic communities are also less likely to participate cancer screening initiatives.[19] [20] The study showed that British-Pakistani women encountered cultural and language barriers and were not aware that breast cancer screening do not take place in a female-only environment. In the UK, women of South Asian heritage display the lowest likelihood of participating in breast cancer screening. Further studies is still necessary to identify the specific barriers for the different South Asian communities.

Deprivation has been recognised as an additional factor contributing to the decrease of individuals attending cancer screening.[21] A UK study indicated that making cancer screening easily accessible increased attendance. Providing mobile screening units parked in supermarket car parks, for example in the poorer areas of Manchester, was a viable approach for offering lung checks to high-risk groups (such as smokers). A simple test measured obstruction to the airflow in and out of the lungs. A third of the tests revealed airflow obstruction, indicating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a risk factor for lung cancer and various other health conditions.

By type

Breast cancer

See main article: Breast cancer screening. Breast cancer is the most common cancer for women.[22] Screening is done to detect the disease early in asymptomatic women, in an attempt to achieve an earlier diagnosis and lower mortality. Different screening tests are used for breast cancer screening, including clinical and self-examination of the breasts, mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Mammography is the standard method for breast cancer screening. This method is reported to give a 40% reduction in the risk of dying from the disease. Breasts with less fat and more fibrous tissue are known as dense breasts, they are a risk factor for breast cancer. The tissue makes it harder to find tumors while doing a mammogram, therefore MRI screening is proposed to supplement the mammogram in these patients.[23]

Like other cancers there are advantages and disadvantages to screening for breast cancer, with risks of harm by overdiagnosis, a possibility of radiation-induced cancer and false positives. From organized programmes it is estimated that 20% of women with 10 screens from ages 50 to 70 will get a false positive result, less than 5% of these cases will result in further invasive treatment. Radiation-induced cancer from screening with mammography has been approximated to be around 1 to 10 per 100,000 women, which is lower than the estimate of death from breast cancer itself.

Mutations of the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 can increase the risk of breast cancer in the patients lifetime. In the US, risk factors for breast cancer like the BRCA gene and age are taken into consideration to decide if a screening test is needed and if so which is best for the person.[24]

Many European countries have organized population-level screening programmes for breast cancer. In 2022, the European Commission's Scientific Advice Mechanism concluded that women should be screened for breast cancer earlier, starting while in their mid 40s.[25]

Cervical cancer

See main article: Cervical screening.

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer for women with an estimated 340,000 deaths according to the World Health Organization (WHO). HPV disease is the leading cause of cervical cancer, therefore making the HPV vaccine the primary prevention measure for the cancer. Screening with the Papanicolaou (Pap) test is consequently the second measure of prevention.[26] The test identifies cells that are precancerous, and are often credited for the reduced mortality.[27]

WHO encourage implementing population-based screening programs. There is a considerable range in the recommended age at which to begin screening around the world. The US does not follow a nation-wide program, and guideline recommendations differ, with some states recommend commencing screening at age 21 and others at 25; the intervals for testing also very, with intervals ranging from 3–5 years. The EU has guidelines for its member states when it comes to cancer screening, but they are not obliged to follow them as they are merely for assistance; it recommends population-based screening programs from age 30 using HPV tests with 5 year intervals.[26]

In 2022, the European Commission's Scientific Advice Mechanism concluded that improved cervical cancer screening, combined with widespread HPV vaccination, presented an opportunity to eliminate cervical cancer in Europe.[28]

Colon (colorectal) cancer

Screening for colorectal cancer, if done early enough, is preventive, seeing as benign lumps called polyps in the colon and rectum are the start to almost all cases of colon cancer. These polyps can be identified and removed by screening tests like a colonoscopy, in which the whole colon is visible. If the cancer develops then a colectomy is required, this is a more intrusive surgery. Other treatment methods are needed if the cancer has started to spread more. Early diagnosis of the cancer can remove the need for more intrusive treatments and patients can be healed.[29] [30]

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends all adults between the ages 50–75 to be screened for colorectal cancer, they also recommend adults between the ages 45–49 be screened as well. For adults 76–85 they recommend offering clinically selective screenings, where patient preference, overall health and history with screening is taken into consideration when deciding where to do a screening. This is due to evidence that there is overall little benefit in screening this group. Stool tests, sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy are the most accepted screening tests for colorectal cancer in the US.

Colorectal cancer screening programmes are widespread in Europe. In England, adults are screened biennially between ages 60–74,[31] and recently extended to ages 50–74. They are screened via fecal immunochemical test (FIT), that is sent home to the individual. However the program currently has a high threshold in which a big proportion of patients with high-risk polyps are missed and not investigated further.[32] [33] In March 2022, the European Commission's Scientific Advice Mechanism recommended age, sex, and previous screening results be used when deciding screenings frequency to improve diagnosis.

Prostate cancer

See main article: Prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer was estimated to be the second leading cause of death by cancer in the US in 2018.[34] There are different methods used in screening for prostate cancer prostate biopsy, prostate-specific antigen testing (PSA), and digital rectal examination (DRE). In the DRE the examiner inserts a finger in the rectum of the patient and examines size and irregularities in the prostate gland. During PSA screening, blood is tested for the protein, prostate-specific antigen, secreted from the prostate gland, levels over 4 ng/mL are indicators for further analysis. At this cutoff point the patient has a 25% chance of having the disease.[35] Because the antigen is prostate specific it can also be elevated by other concerns in the prostate, like prostatitis and benign enlargements of the gland. A prostate biopsy is then performed to evaluate further diagnosis and treatment.

When PSA screening began in the 1980s, cases of prostate cancer rose by 26% between 1986-2005, with the most affected age group being men under the age of 50.[36] Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, and the cancer will grow aggressively in approximately 1 in 3 cases. Therefore there is a risk of overdiagnosing and overtreating, this has been subject to debate for many years.[25]

The US Preventative Service Task Force have previously recommended against PSA testing in a systematic manner because of the overdiagnosis risks. In recent years recommendations like these are being revised, as new methods of screening are advancing, like MRI scanning as a secondary assessment to the PSA test. More research needs to be done in this area, to identify who has the most benefit of screening.[37]

Lung cancer

See main article: Lung cancer screening. As of 2020, lung cancer accounted for 18.4% of cancer mortalities worldwide. Because of late disgnosis only 15% of patients will live more than 5 years after their diagnosis.[38] The NELSON trial concluded that with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) performed on high-risk populations, there is a significantly lower mortality than with no screening at all.

Smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, and is the cause of death in 55% of women and 70% of men with lung cancer.[39] The US Preventative Service Task Force revised the recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, where annual LDCT is recommended for adults between the ages 50 and 80, who either currently smoke or have a history of smoking 20 or more packs yearly, in the past 15 years. They also ceased the recommendation of annual screening for individuals who have refrained from smoking the last 15 years and those who have new medical issues that already reduce life expectancy. These new recommendations have increased the number of people qualified for lung cancer screening by 86%.[40]

Similarly, in March 2022, the European Commission's Scientific Advice Mechanism recommended lung screening for current and ex-smokers, combined with ongoing smoking cessation programs.

Pancreatic cancer

Early detection of pancreatic cancer biomarkers was accomplished using SERS-based immunoassay approach.[41] A SERS-base multiplex proteinbiomarker detection platform in a microfluidic chip to detect is used to detect several protein biomarkers to predict the type of disease and critical biomarkers and increase the chance of diagnosis between diseases with similar biomarkers (prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and pancreatitis).[42] It is generally agreed that general screening of large groups for pancreatic cancer is not at present likely to be effective, and outside clinical trials there are no programmes for this. The European Society for Medical Oncology recommends regular screening with endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/CT imaging for those at high risk from inherited genetics,[43] in line with other recommendations,[44] which may also include CT. For screening, special CT scanning procedures may be used, such as multiphase CT scan.[45]

Oral cancer

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2013 found that evidence was insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening for oral cancer in adults without symptoms by primary care providers.[46] The American Academy of Family Physicians comes to similar conclusions while the American Cancer Society recommends that adults over 20 years who have periodic health examinations should have the oral cavity examined for cancer.[46] The American Dental Association recommends that providers remain alert for signs of cancer during routine examinations.[46] Oral cancer screening is also recommended by some groups of dental hygienists.[47]

Other cancers

USPSTF have recommendations for breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer as these have evidence-based screening methods. For the general population other cancers don't have recommended screenings, but for people with risk factors known to be associated with a specific cancer there are screenings available.[48]

Research

Whole body imaging

Full body CT scans is a type of medical imaging utilized to search for cancer in individuals without clear symptoms. CT scans can pose challenges, especially exposure to ionizing radiation.[49] However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are not associated with a radiation risk, and MRI scans are being evaluated for their use in cancer screening.[50] There is a significant risk of detecting incidentalomas - benign lesions that might be misinterpreted as cancer and put patients at potential risk by undergoing unnecessary follow-up procedures.[51]

Multi-cancer blood tests

See also: Liquid biopsy. In 2023 the FDA approved the first blood test for the detection of cancer, which identifies DNA variants in 47 genes associated with an elevated risk of hereditary cancer.[52] [53] This test is manufactured by Invitae. Other tests on the market are multi-cancer early detection (MCED).[54] These are distinct from hereditary cancer tests since they detect the presence of cancer through circulating tumor DNA in the blood. More MCED tests are currently in development. The tests include,

As of 2023 multiple major clinical studies are undergoing for the assessment of more blood tests.[57] [56] The current generation of blood tests exhibit false positive rates ranging between 0.5-1%. The risk of false positives from population screening has to be weighed against the prevalence of cancer in the screened population.

Further reading

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: 2010-01-13 . What Is Cancer Screening? . National Cancer Institute.
  2. Web site: Press Announcements - FDA authorizes, with special controls, direct-to-consumer test that reports three mutations in the BRCA breast cancer genes. Food and Drug Administration. 2019-09-10.
  3. Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D, Wender RC . Cancer screening in the United States, 2019: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening . CA . 69 . 3 . 184–210 . May 2019 . 30875085 . 10.3322/caac.21557 . free .
  4. Roser . Max . December 7, 2021 . Causes of death globally: what do people die from? . Our World in Data.
  5. Bobrowska A, Murton M, Seedat F, Visintin C, Mackie A, Steele R, Marshall J . Targeted screening in the UK: A narrow concept with broad application . The Lancet Regional Health. Europe . 16 . 100353 . May 2022 . 35492962 . 9038565 . 10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100353 .
  6. Crosby D, Bhatia S, Brindle KM, Coussens LM, Dive C, Emberton M, Esener S, Fitzgerald RC, Gambhir SS, Kuhn P, Rebbeck TR, Balasubramanian S . 6 . Early detection of cancer . Science . 375 . 6586 . eaay9040 . March 2022 . 35298272 . 10.1126/science.aay9040 . 247521566 .
  7. Shepardson LB, Dean L . Current controversies in breast cancer screening . Seminars in Oncology . 47 . 4 . 177–181 . August 2020 . 32513421 . 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2020.05.002 . 219550403 .
  8. Miles A, Paschalidi A, Sharma N . The effect of numeric information about the likelihood of receiving a false negative or false positive result on people's attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening using faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) . Patient Education and Counseling . 114 . 107857 . September 2023 . 37348310 . 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107857 . free .
  9. Book: Robra BP . Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening . 2021 . Ethical Challenges in Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy . Recent Results in Cancer Research . 218 . 85–104 . Bauer AW, Hofheinz R, Utikal JS . Cham . Springer International Publishing . en . 10.1007/978-3-030-63749-1_7 . 34019164 . 978-3-030-63748-4 . 235075529 .
  10. Hooshmand S, Reed WM, Suleiman ME, Brennan PC . A review of screening mammography: The benefits and radiation risks put into perspective . Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences . 53 . 1 . 147–158 . March 2022 . 34969620 . 10.1016/j.jmir.2021.12.002 . 245529037 .
  11. Ratushnyak S, Hoogendoorn M, van Baal PH . Cost-Effectiveness of Cancer Screening: Health and Costs in Life Years Gained . American Journal of Preventive Medicine . 57 . 6 . 792–799 . December 2019 . 31753260 . 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.07.027 . 1765/121569 . free .
  12. Petrova D, Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET . Understanding the Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening: A Model of Factors That Shape Informed Decision Making . Medical Decision Making . 35 . 7 . 847–858 . October 2015 . 26044208 . 10.1177/0272989X15587676 . 13919922 . 11858/00-001M-0000-0028-9E92-D . free .
  13. Abrahamsson L, Isheden G, Czene K, Humphreys K . Continuous tumour growth models, lead time estimation and length bias in breast cancer screening studies . Statistical Methods in Medical Research . 29 . 2 . 374–395 . February 2020 . 30854935 . 10.1177/0962280219832901 . free .
  14. Chertow GM, Paltiel AD, Owen WF, Lazarus JM . Cost-effectiveness of cancer screening in end-stage renal disease . Archives of Internal Medicine . 156 . 12 . 1345–1350 . June 1996 . 8651845 . 10.1001/archinte.1996.00440110117016 .
  15. News: Span . Paula . Do Cancer Centers Push Too Many Tests? . 18 August 2024 . The New York Times . July 17, 2022.
  16. 2021-11-10 . Catching cancer early: how research could help us improve . NIHR Evidence . Plain English summary . en . National Institute for Health and Care Research . 10.3310/collection_48071 . 244006179.
  17. Solmi M, Firth J, Miola A, Fornaro M, Frison E, Fusar-Poli P, Dragioti E, Shin JI, Carvalho AF, Stubbs B, Koyanagi A, Kisely S, Correll CU . 6 . Disparities in cancer screening in people with mental illness across the world versus the general population: prevalence and comparative meta-analysis including 4 717 839 people . The Lancet. Psychiatry . 7 . 1 . 52–63 . January 2020 . 31787585 . 10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30414-6 . 208535709 . 11577/3383784 . free .
  18. Ross E, Maguire A, Donnelly M, Mairs A, Hall C, O'Reilly D . Does poor mental health explain socio-demographic gradients in breast cancer screening uptake? A population-based study . European Journal of Public Health . 30 . 3 . 396–401 . June 2020 . 31834366 . 10.1093/eurpub/ckz220 .
  19. Woof VG, Ruane H, French DP, Ulph F, Qureshi N, Khan N, Evans DG, Donnelly LS . 6 . The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women . BMC Cancer . 20 . 1 . 452 . May 2020 . 32434564 . 7240981 . 10.1186/s12885-020-06959-2 . free .
  20. Woof VG, Ruane H, Ulph F, French DP, Qureshi N, Khan N, Evans DG, Donnelly LS . 6 . Engagement barriers and service inequities in the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from British-Pakistani women . Journal of Medical Screening . 27 . 3 . 130–137 . September 2020 . 31791172 . 7645618 . 10.1177/0969141319887405 .
  21. Balata H, Harvey J, Barber PV, Colligan D, Duerden R, Elton P, Evison M, Greaves M, Howells J, Irion K, Karunaratne D, Mellor S, Newton T, Sawyer R, Sharman A, Smith E, Taylor B, Taylor S, Tonge J, Walsham A, Whittaker J, Vestbo J, Booton R, Crosbie PA . 6 . Spirometry performed as part of the Manchester community-based lung cancer screening programme detects a high prevalence of airflow obstruction in individuals without a prior diagnosis of COPD . Thorax . 75 . 8 . 655–660 . August 2020 . 32444437 . 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-213584 .
  22. Waks AG, Winer EP . Breast Cancer Treatment: A Review . JAMA . 321 . 3 . 288–300 . January 2019 . 30667505 . 10.1001/jama.2018.19323 . 58580711 .
  23. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Bouvard V, Bianchini F, Straif K . Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group . The New England Journal of Medicine . 372 . 24 . 2353–2358 . June 2015 . 26039523 . 10.1056/NEJMsr1504363 .
  24. Nakamura Y, Kubota J, Nishimura Y, Nagata K, Nishimura M, Daino K, Ishikawa A, Kaneko T, Mashimo T, Kokubo T, Takabatake M, Inoue K, Fukushi M, Arai M, Saito M, Shimada Y, Kakinuma S, Imaoka T . 6 . Brca1L63X /+ rat is a novel model of human BRCA1 deficiency displaying susceptibility to radiation-induced mammary cancer . Cancer Science . 113 . 10 . 3362–3375 . October 2022 . 35851737 . 9530872 . 10.1111/cas.15485 .
  25. Book: European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation. . Cancer screening in the European Union. . European Commission Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. . 2022 . Publications Office . LU . 10.2777/867180. 978-92-76-45603-2 .
  26. Wang W, Arcà E, Sinha A, Hartl K, Houwing N, Kothari S . Cervical cancer screening guidelines and screening practices in 11 countries: A systematic literature review . Preventive Medicine Reports . 28 . 101813 . August 2022 . 35637896 . 9142642 . 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101813 .
  27. Lee HY, Li Q, Luo Y, Wang K, Hendrix S, Lee J, Yoon S, Nguyen Vu QH . 6 . Is Pap Test Awareness Critical to Pap Test Uptake in Women Living in Rural Vietnam? . Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention . 22 . 3 . 903–908 . March 2021 . 33773556 . 8286658 . 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.3.903 .
  28. Web site: 2 March 2022 . Improving cancer screening in the European Union . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20220301155607/https://sapea.info/topic/cancer-screening/ . 2022-03-01 . 10 March 2022 . Scientific Advice for Policy by European Academies..
  29. Qaseem A, Crandall CJ, Mustafa RA, Hicks LA, Wilt TJ, Forciea MA, Fitterman N, Horwitch CA, Kansagara D, Maroto M, McLean RM, Roa J, Tufte J . 6 . Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians . Annals of Internal Medicine . 171 . 9 . 643–654 . November 2019 . 31683290 . 8152103 . 10.7326/M19-0642 .
  30. Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, Cabana M, Caughey AB, Davis EM, Donahue KE, Doubeni CA, Krist AH, Kubik M, Li L, Ogedegbe G, Owens DK, Pbert L, Silverstein M, Stevermer J, Tseng CW, Wong JB . 6 . Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement . JAMA . 325 . 19 . 1965–1977 . May 2021 . 34003218 . 10.1001/jama.2021.6238 . free .
  31. Web site: 2021-03-17 . NHS bowel cancer screening (BCSP) programme . 2024-02-14 . GOV.UK . en.
  32. New screening pathways could improve NHS England's bowel cancer programme . 2021-09-13 . National Institute for Health Research . 10.3310/alert_47581 . en.
  33. Li SJ, Sharples LD, Benton SC, Blyuss O, Mathews C, Sasieni P, Duffy SW . Faecal immunochemical testing in bowel cancer screening: Estimating outcomes for different diagnostic policies . Journal of Medical Screening . 28 . 3 . 277–285 . September 2021 . 33342370 . 8366184 . 10.1177/0969141320980501 .
  34. Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J . Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based Screening for Prostate Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force . JAMA . 319 . 18 . 1914–1931 . May 2018 . 29801018 . 10.1001/jama.2018.3712 .
  35. Sekhoacha M, Riet K, Motloung P, Gumenku L, Adegoke A, Mashele S . Prostate Cancer Review: Genetics, Diagnosis, Treatment Options, and Alternative Approaches . Molecules . 27 . 17 . 5730 . September 2022 . 36080493 . 9457814 . 10.3390/molecules27175730 . free .
  36. Welch HG, Albertsen PC . Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening: 1986-2005 . Journal of the National Cancer Institute . 101 . 19 . 1325–1329 . October 2009 . 19720969 . 2758309 . 10.1093/jnci/djp278 .
  37. Book: SAPEA . Improving Cancer Screening in the European Union . 2022-03-02 . Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA) . 978-3-9823562-0-4 . DE . 10.26356/cancerscreening.
  38. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, Lammers JJ, Weenink C, Yousaf-Khan U, Horeweg N, van 't Westeinde S, Prokop M, Mali WP, Mohamed Hoesein FA, van Ooijen PM, Aerts JG, den Bakker MA, Thunnissen E, Verschakelen J, Vliegenthart R, Walter JE, Ten Haaf K, Groen HJ, Oudkerk M . 6 . Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Volume CT Screening in a Randomized Trial . The New England Journal of Medicine . 382 . 6 . 503–513 . February 2020 . 31995683 . 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793 . 2066/216700 . free .
  39. O'Keeffe LM, Taylor G, Huxley RR, Mitchell P, Woodward M, Peters SA . Smoking as a risk factor for lung cancer in women and men: a systematic review and meta-analysis . BMJ Open . 8 . 10 . e021611 . October 2018 . 30287668 . 6194454 . 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021611 .
  40. Colson YL, Shepard JO, Lennes IT . New USPSTF Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening: Better but Not Enough . JAMA Surgery . 156 . 6 . 513–514 . June 2021 . 33687427 . 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0242 . 232160050 .
  41. Banaei N, Foley A, Houghton JM, Sun Y, Kim B . Multiplex detection of pancreatic cancer biomarkers using a SERS-based immunoassay . Nanotechnology . 28 . 45 . 455101 . November 2017 . 28937361 . 10.1088/1361-6528/aa8e8c . 206086640 . 2017Nanot..28S5101B .
  42. Banaei N, Moshfegh J, Mohseni-Kabir A, Houghton JM, Sun Y, Kim B . Machine learning algorithms enhance the specificity of cancer biomarker detection using SERS-based immunoassays in microfluidic chips . RSC Advances . 9 . 4 . 1859–1868 . January 2019 . 35516124 . 9059745 . 10.1039/c8ra08930b . free . 2019RSCAd...9.1859B .
  43. Seufferlein T, Bachet JB, Van Cutsem E, Rougier P . Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: ESMO-ESDO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up . Annals of Oncology . 23 . Suppl 7 . vii33–vii40 . October 2012 . 22997452 . 10.1093/annonc/mds224 . free .
  44. Vincent A, Herman J, Schulick R, Hruban RH, Goggins M . Pancreatic cancer . Lancet . 378 . 9791 . 607–620 . August 2011 . 21620466 . 3062508 . 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62307-0 .
  45. Web site: Tests for Pancreatic Cancer. www.cancer.org. en. 2020-04-30.
  46. Web site: Final Recommendation Statement: Oral Cancer: Screening - US Preventive Services Task Force. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. 23 November 2017. en. November 2013.
  47. Web site: Oral Cancer Screening. www.crdha.ca. 24 November 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20170911081434/http://www.crdha.ca/the-profession/professional-resources/working-with-clients/oral-cancer-screening.aspx. 11 September 2017. dead.
  48. Barsouk A, Saginala K, Aluru JS, Rawla P, Barsouk A . US Cancer Screening Recommendations: Developments and the Impact of COVID-19 . Medical Sciences . 10 . 1 . 16 . March 2022 . 35323215 . 8949858 . 10.3390/medsci10010016 . free .
  49. Albert JM . Radiation risk from CT: implications for cancer screening . AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology . 201 . 1 . W81–W87 . July 2013 . 23789701 . 10.2214/AJR.12.9226 .
  50. Lauenstein TC, Semelka RC . Emerging techniques: whole-body screening and staging with MRI . Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging . 24 . 3 . 489–498 . September 2006 . 16888774 . 10.1002/jmri.20666 . free .
  51. Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I . Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review . The British Journal of Radiology . 83 . 988 . 276–289 . April 2010 . 20335439 . 3473456 . 10.1259/bjr/98067945 .
  52. Web site: Office of the Commissioner . 2023-10-02 . FDA Grants First Marketing Authorization for a DNA Test to Assess Predisposition for Dozens of Cancer Types . 2023-11-09 . FDA . en.
  53. Web site: Branca M . 2023-10-02 . First Blood Test for Dozens of Hereditary Cancers Approved by FDA . 2023-11-09 . Inside Precision Medicine . en-US.
  54. Etzioni R, Gulati R, Weiss NS . Multicancer Early Detection: Learning From the Past to Meet the Future . Journal of the National Cancer Institute . 114 . 3 . 349–352 . March 2022 . 34450655 . 8902333 . 10.1093/jnci/djab168 .
  55. Web site: Janin A . 2023-10-25 . This $1,000 Test Finds Signs of Cancer in Your Blood . 2023-11-09 . WSJ . en-US.
  56. Connal S, Cameron JM, Sala A, Brennan PM, Palmer DS, Palmer JD, Perlow H, Baker MJ . 6 . Liquid biopsies: the future of cancer early detection . Journal of Translational Medicine . 21 . 1 . 118 . February 2023 . 36774504 . 9922467 . 10.1186/s12967-023-03960-8 . free .
  57. Stergiopoulou D, Markou A, Strati A, Zavridou M, Tzanikou E, Mastoraki S, Kallergi G, Georgoulias V, Lianidou E . 6 . Comprehensive liquid biopsy analysis as a tool for the early detection of minimal residual disease in breast cancer . Scientific Reports . 13 . 1 . 1258 . January 2023 . 36690653 . 9870904 . 10.1038/s41598-022-25400-1 . 2023NatSR..13.1258S .

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Cancer screening".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.