Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:271 (10 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.39090.662963.80
Results of randomised trials are needed before recommending its adoption
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
It seems logicaland appealingthat early diagnosis of lung cancer is beneficial. But simple logic can be misleading when interpreting studies on cancer screening. The central issue is that the longer survival of patients with screen detected cancers results from a combination of lead time bias, length bias, overdiagnosis bias, and true effectiveness of screening.1
By design, screening detects cancers earlier (lead time), but earlier detection may not change the time until death from cancer. Periodic screening will detect a large proportion of slower growing cancers because they persist longer in an asymptomatic state (length bias), and it may detect slow growing cancers that do not need treating (overdiagnosis). Without a control group, it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish between these effects, or even to be sure that screening has any true effect at all.
Despite this, early detection promises the best hope for reducing mortality due to lung
Pamela M McMahon, instructor in radiology, David C Christiani, professor of medicine
1 Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA
dchristiani@partners.org