BMJ  2006;332:678-679 (25 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.678

Editorial

Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer

May require randomised controlled trials to assess overdetection

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The use of magnetic resonance imaging to screen women with high risk mutations in the genes associated with breast cancer has raised debate on what constitutes sufficient evidence for the efficacy of new screening tests.^1-4 The gold standard is evidence from randomised trials that early detection reduces mortality, as is the case for mammography and breast cancer,⁵ but how should we evaluate new tests that might detect cancer earlier?

Showing that a new test is more sensitive than others suggests that it has promise as a possible screening test,⁶ but detecting more apparent cases does not necessarily mean that using the test routinely will lead to a further reduction in breast cancer deaths. To fulfil the criteria for an effective screening test, the additional cancers detected must include ones that would both progress during the patient's lifetime and be curable by earlier treatment. The extra cancers picked up by . . . [Full text of this article]

Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
(lesi@health.usyd.edu.au)

Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.

Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Count the harms

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2006 332: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: 1 in 4 cancers detected by mammography are pseudocancers

H Gilbert Welch, Lisa M Schwartz, and Steven Woloshin
BMJ 2006 332: 727. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study

Sophia Zackrisson, Ingvar Andersson, Lars Janzon, Jonas Manjer, and Jens Peter Garne
BMJ 2006 332: 689-692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study

Per-Henrik Zahl, Bjørn Heine Strand, and Jan Mæhlen
BMJ 2004 328: 921-924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Glasziou, P., Irwig, L., Deeks, J. (2009). Do Reference Standards Hold Back the Progress of Medicine?. ANN INTERN MED 150: 735-736 [Full text]  
• Glasziou, P., Irwig, L., Deeks, J. J. (2008). When Should a New Test Become the Current Reference Standard?. ANN INTERN MED 149: 816-821 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Houssami, N., Ciatto, S. (2008). Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA 300: 1514-1515 [Full text]  
• Wollins, D. S., Somerfield, M. R. (2008). Q and A: Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection and Evaluation of Breast Cancer. J Oncol Pract 4: 18-23 [Full text]  
• Del Turco, M. R., Mantellini, P., Ciatto, S., Bonardi, R., Martinelli, F., Lazzari, B., Houssami, N. (2007). Full-Field Digital Versus Screen-Film Mammography: Comparative Accuracy in Concurrent Screening Cohorts. Am. J. Roentgenol. 189: 860-866 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Skaane, P., Hofvind, S., Skjennald, A. (2007). Randomized Trial of Screen-Film versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading in Population-based Screening Program: Follow-up and Final Results of Oslo II Study. Radiology 244: 708-717 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lord, S. J., Irwig, L., Simes, R. J. (2006). When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials?. ANN INTERN MED 144: 850-855 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more >>