Abstract
Population-based screening seems to be a common-sense strategy for controlling cancer, but recent reports have raised controversy concerning the benefits of common screening procedures. Intense efforts to develop and evaluate novel screening technologies are underway; however, effective use of any screening method must take into account any underlying biological considerations. What are these biological issues, and what challenges do clinicians face in screening for common cancers?
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baxter, N. Preventive health care, 2001 update: should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer? CMAJ 164, 1837–1846 (2001).
Olsen, O. & Gotzsche, P. C. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 358, 1340–1342 (2001).
Woolf, S. H. The accuracy and effectiveness of routine population screening with mammography, prostate-specific antigen, and prenatal ultrasound: a review of published scientific evidence. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 17, 275–304 (2001).
Mulshine, J. L. Opinion: Screening for lung cancer: in pursuit of pre-metastatic disease. Nature Rev. Cancer 3, 65–73 (2003).
Petricoin, E. F. et al. Use of proteomics patterns in serum to identify ovarian cancer. Lancet 359, 572–577 (2002).
Nicholson, P. W. & Harland, S. J. Survival prospects after screen-detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 90, 686–693 (2002).
Neugut, A. I., Jacobson, J. S. & Rella, V. A. Prevalence and incidence of colorectal adenomas and cancer in asymptomatic patients. Gastrointest. Endosc. Clin. N. Am. 7, 387–399 (1997).
Neal, D. E. & Donovan, J. L. Prostate cancer: to screen or not to screen. Lancet Oncol. 1, 17–24 (2000).
Whitmore, W. F. Localized prostate cancer: management and detection issues. Lancet 343, 1263–1267 (1994).
Bok, R. A. & Small, E. J. Bloodborne biomolecular markers in prostate cancer development and progression. Nature Rev. Cancer 2, 918–926 (2002).
Lofters, A., Juffs, H. G., Pond, G. R. & Tannock, I. F. 'PSA-itis': knowledge of serum prostate specific antigen and other causes of anxiety in men with metastatic prostate cancer. J. Urol. 168, 2516–2520 (2002).
Tannock, I. F. Eradication of a disease: how we cured symptomless prostate cancer. Lancet 359, 1341–1342 (2002).
Pollak, M. Insulin-like growth factors and prostate cancer. Epidemiol. Rev. 23, 59–66 (2001).
Chan, J. M. et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and IGF binding protein-3 as predictors of advanced-stage prostate cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 1099–1106 (2002).
Greller, L. D., Tobin, F. L. & Poste, G. Tumor heterogeneity and progression: conceptual foundations for modeling. Invasion Metastasis 16, 177–208 (1996).
Foulkes, W. D. et al. Primary node negative breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers has a poor outcome. Ann. Oncol. 11, 307–313 (2000).
Van de Vijver, M. J. et al. A gene-expresssion signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1999–2009 (2002).
Chappuis, P. O., Nethercot, V. & Foulkes, W. D. Clinico-pathological characteristics of BRCA1- and BRCA2-related breast cancer. Sem. Surg. Oncol. 18, 287–295 (2000).
Porter, P. L. et al. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91, 2020–2028 (1999).
Brekelmans, C. T. et al. Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk. J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 924–930 (2001).
Tabar, L., Duffy, S. W., Vitak, B., Chen, H.-H. & Prevost, T. C. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 86, 449–462 (1999).
Goffin, J., Chappuis, P. O., Wong, N. & Foulkes, W. D. Re: Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 1754–1755 (2001).
Stoutjesdijk, M. J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 93, 1095–1102 (2001).
Warner, E. et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 3524–3531 (2001).
Meijers-Heijboer, H. et al. Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N. Engl. J. Med. 345, 159–164 (2001).
Julian-Reynier, C. M. et al. Women's attitudes toward preventive strategies for hereditary breast or ovarian carcinoma differ from one country to another: differences among English, French, and Canadian women. Cancer 92, 959–968 (2001).
Boyd, N., Lockwood, G., Byng, J., Tritchler, D. & Yaffe, M. Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7, 1133–1144 (1998).
Laken, S. J. et al. Familial colorectal cancer in Ashkenazim due to a hypermutable tract in APC. Nature Genet. 17, 79–83 (1997).
Ma, J. et al. Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk in men and plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein-3. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 91, 620–625 (1999).
Giardiello, F. M., Brensinger, J. D. & Petersen, G. M. AGA technical review on hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing. Gastroenterology 121, 198–213 (2001).
Sidransky, D. Emerging molecular markers of cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 2, 210–219 (2002).
Anderson, W. F. et al. Colorectal cancer screening for persons at average risk. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 1126–1133 (2002).
Frazier, A. L., Colditz, G. A., Fuchs, C. A. & Kuntz, K. M. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA 284, 1954–1961 (2000).
Budenholzer, B. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. JAMA 285, 407 (2001).
Lieberman, D. A. & Weiss, D. G. One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon. N. Engl. J. Med. 345, 555–560 (2001).
Pineau, B. C. et al. Validation of virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps and masses: rationale for proper study design. Int. J. Gastrointest. Cancer 30, 133–140 (2001).
Jass, J. R., Whitehall, V. L., Young, J. & Leggett, B. A. Emerging concepts in colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 123, 862–876 (2002).
Atkin, W. S. et al. Design of a multicentre randomised trial to evaluate flexible sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. J. Med. Screen. 8, 137–144 (2001).
Schoenfeld, P. et al. Accuracy of polyp detection by gastroenterologists and nurse endoscopists during flexible sigmoidoscopy: a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 117, 312–318 (1999).
Kopans, D. B. The most recent breast cancer screening controversy about whether mammographic screening benefits women at any age: nonsense and nonscience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180, 21–26 (2003).
Black, W. C., Haggstrom, D. A. & Welch, G. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 167–173 (2002).
Alexander, F. E. et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomized trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 353, 1903–1908 (1999).
Church, T. R., Ederer, F. & Mandel, J. S. Re: All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 861 (2002).
Gail, M. H. & Katki, H. A. Re: All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 862 (2002).
Black, W. C., Haggstrom, D. A. & Welch, H. G. Re: All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 865–866 (2002).
Rogers, L. F. Screening mammography: target of opportunity for the media. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180, 1 (2003).
Mahadevia, P. J. et al. Lung cancer screening with helical computed tomography in older adult smokers: a decision and cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA 289, 313–322 (2003).
Kolata, G. Breast cancer: mammography finds more tumors. Then the debate begins. New York Times (9 Apr 2002).
Sporn, M. D. & Suh, N. Chemoprevention: an essential approach to controlling cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 2, 537–543 (2002).
Veronesi, U. et al. Italian randomized trial among women with hysterectomy: tamoxifen and hormone-dependent breast cancer in high-risk women. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 95, 160–165 (2003).
Franco, E. L., Duarte-Franco, E. & Ferenczy, A. Cervical cancer: epidemiology, prevention and the role of HPV infection. CMAJ 164, 1017–1025 (2001).
US Bureau of Census. An Aging World: 2001 [online], (cited 24 Feb 2003), <http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p95-01-1.pdf> (2001).
Pignone, M., Saha, S., Hoerger, T. & Mandelblatt, J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 137, 96–104 (2002).
Greenwald, P. et al. Estimated effect of breast self-examination and routine physician examinations on breast cancer mortality. N. Engl. J. Med. 299, 271–273 (1978).
Huguley, C. M. & Brown, R. L. The value of breast self-examination. Cancer 47, 989–995 (1981).
Newcomb, P. A. et al. Breast self-examination in relation to the occurrence of advanced breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 83, 260–265 (1991).
Thomas, D. B. et al. Randomized trial of breast examination in Shanghai: final results. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 94, 1445–1457 (2002).
Smith, R. A., Cokkinides, V. & Eyre, H. J. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2003. CA Cancer J. Clin. 53, 27–43 (2003).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank R. Narasimhadevara for her contribution to this review. W.D.F. is a Principal Investigator of the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network. M.N.P. holds the Alexander Goldfarb Research Chair in Medical Oncology at McGill University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Related links
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pollak, M., Foulkes, W. Challenges to cancer control by screening. Nat Rev Cancer 3, 297–303 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1042
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1042
This article is cited by
-
Screening for cancer with molecular markers: progress comes with potential problems
Nature Reviews Cancer (2012)
-
Biomarker validation by targeted mass spectrometry
Nature Biotechnology (2009)
-
Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline
Cancer Causes & Control (2008)
-
Caught in time
Nature (2006)
-
Insulin-like growth factors and neoplasia
Nature Reviews Cancer (2004)