Uninformed compliance or informed choice? a needed shift in our approach to cancer screening

Michael Edward Stefanek

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It has been more than 30 years since the first consensus development meeting was held to deal with guidelines of mammography screening. Although the National Cancer Institute has wisely focused on the science of screening and of screening benefits vs harm, many professional organizations, advocacy groups, and the media have maintained a focus on establishing who should be screened and promoting recommendations for which age groups should be screened. Guidelines have been developed not only for mammography but also for screening at virtually all major cancer sites, especially for prostate cancer, and most recently, with the preliminary results of the National Lung Screening Trial, for lung cancer. It seems clear that we have done an inadequate job of educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of cancer screening, including the extent to which screening can reduce cancer mortality. We must also question whether our practice of summoning women to have mammograms, while providing men informed choice for prostate cancer screening, is consistent with a scientific analysis of the relative harms and benefits. We have spent a staggering amount of time and energy over the past several decades developing, discussing, and debating guidelines. Professional and advocacy groups have spent much time aggressively advocating the adoption of guidelines supported by their respective groups. It seems that it would be much more productive to devote such energy to educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of screening and to engaging in shared decision making.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1821-1826
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume103
Issue number24
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 21 2010

Fingerprint

Early Detection of Cancer
Compliance
Guidelines
Mammography
Prostatic Neoplasms
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Lung Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Consensus
Decision Making
Age Groups
Lung
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Cite this

Uninformed compliance or informed choice? a needed shift in our approach to cancer screening. / Stefanek, Michael Edward.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 103, No. 24, 21.12.2010, p. 1821-1826.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{2256a1c81e8d423985c85bf9f6d4ccab,
title = "Uninformed compliance or informed choice? a needed shift in our approach to cancer screening",
abstract = "It has been more than 30 years since the first consensus development meeting was held to deal with guidelines of mammography screening. Although the National Cancer Institute has wisely focused on the science of screening and of screening benefits vs harm, many professional organizations, advocacy groups, and the media have maintained a focus on establishing who should be screened and promoting recommendations for which age groups should be screened. Guidelines have been developed not only for mammography but also for screening at virtually all major cancer sites, especially for prostate cancer, and most recently, with the preliminary results of the National Lung Screening Trial, for lung cancer. It seems clear that we have done an inadequate job of educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of cancer screening, including the extent to which screening can reduce cancer mortality. We must also question whether our practice of summoning women to have mammograms, while providing men informed choice for prostate cancer screening, is consistent with a scientific analysis of the relative harms and benefits. We have spent a staggering amount of time and energy over the past several decades developing, discussing, and debating guidelines. Professional and advocacy groups have spent much time aggressively advocating the adoption of guidelines supported by their respective groups. It seems that it would be much more productive to devote such energy to educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of screening and to engaging in shared decision making.",
author = "Stefanek, {Michael Edward}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/djr474",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "103",
pages = "1821--1826",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "24",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Uninformed compliance or informed choice? a needed shift in our approach to cancer screening

AU - Stefanek, Michael Edward

PY - 2010/12/21

Y1 - 2010/12/21

N2 - It has been more than 30 years since the first consensus development meeting was held to deal with guidelines of mammography screening. Although the National Cancer Institute has wisely focused on the science of screening and of screening benefits vs harm, many professional organizations, advocacy groups, and the media have maintained a focus on establishing who should be screened and promoting recommendations for which age groups should be screened. Guidelines have been developed not only for mammography but also for screening at virtually all major cancer sites, especially for prostate cancer, and most recently, with the preliminary results of the National Lung Screening Trial, for lung cancer. It seems clear that we have done an inadequate job of educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of cancer screening, including the extent to which screening can reduce cancer mortality. We must also question whether our practice of summoning women to have mammograms, while providing men informed choice for prostate cancer screening, is consistent with a scientific analysis of the relative harms and benefits. We have spent a staggering amount of time and energy over the past several decades developing, discussing, and debating guidelines. Professional and advocacy groups have spent much time aggressively advocating the adoption of guidelines supported by their respective groups. It seems that it would be much more productive to devote such energy to educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of screening and to engaging in shared decision making.

AB - It has been more than 30 years since the first consensus development meeting was held to deal with guidelines of mammography screening. Although the National Cancer Institute has wisely focused on the science of screening and of screening benefits vs harm, many professional organizations, advocacy groups, and the media have maintained a focus on establishing who should be screened and promoting recommendations for which age groups should be screened. Guidelines have been developed not only for mammography but also for screening at virtually all major cancer sites, especially for prostate cancer, and most recently, with the preliminary results of the National Lung Screening Trial, for lung cancer. It seems clear that we have done an inadequate job of educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of cancer screening, including the extent to which screening can reduce cancer mortality. We must also question whether our practice of summoning women to have mammograms, while providing men informed choice for prostate cancer screening, is consistent with a scientific analysis of the relative harms and benefits. We have spent a staggering amount of time and energy over the past several decades developing, discussing, and debating guidelines. Professional and advocacy groups have spent much time aggressively advocating the adoption of guidelines supported by their respective groups. It seems that it would be much more productive to devote such energy to educating screening candidates about the harms and benefits of screening and to engaging in shared decision making.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856593040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856593040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djr474

DO - 10.1093/jnci/djr474

M3 - Review article

C2 - 22106094

AN - SCOPUS:84856593040

VL - 103

SP - 1821

EP - 1826

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 24

ER -