Comparative effectiveness research in cancer screening programmes

BMJ 2012; 344 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2864 (Published 24 May 2012)
Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e2864

Recent rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included as edited readers' letters in the weekly print issue of the BMJ, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window.

Displaying 1-2 out of 2 published

Sir,

Bretthauer and Hoff1 state that cervical smear screening for cervical cancer has never been investigated in a randomized trial. However, further to a clinical study in New Zealand, where a number of women were conservatively managed for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3 (CIN3), McCredie et al reviewed the outcomes of 1063 women diagnosed within that unit, finding that the cumulative incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix in women managed only by biopsy was 31.3%2. This provides the most valid estimate currently available on the progression and its rate from CIN3 to invasive cancer. Furthermore, studies have shown that untreated vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) also exhibit significant potential to progress to invasive disease within ten years3.

Similarly, the authors suggest that a “watch and wait” approach should be considered for screen detected ductal carcinoma in situ, but the ethical implications of such an option must be discussed.

Yours faithfully,

1. Bretthauer M, Hoff. Compariative effectiveness research in cancer screeeening programmes. BMJ 2012; 344: e2864

2. Margaret RE McCredie, Katrina J Sharples, Charlotte Paul, Judith Baranyai, Gabriele Medley, Ronald W Jones, David CG Skegg. Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort studyThe Lancet Oncology, Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 425-434

3. Jones, Ronald W; Rowan, Darion M; Stewart, Alistair W. Vulvar Intraepithelial Neoplasia: Aspects of the Natural History and Outcome in 405 Women Obstetrics & Gynecology:
December 2005 - Volume 106 - Issue 6 - pp 1319-1326

Competing interests: None declared

S T Datta, Senior Registrar, Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust, 87 Norfolk House, Regency St London

Click to like:

I am curious about the absence of discussion concerning consent. How does the study deal with generally accepted principles, such as WHO Good Clinical Practice Principle 7 ("Freely given informed consent should be obtained from every subject prior to research participation in accordance with national culture(s) and requirements.")? Has Norway ‘decided’ that its national culture is compatible with a doctrine of presumed or societal consent, rather than individual consent – at least for some health studies? Can we learn more about this?

Competing interests: None declared

David Hadorn, Senior research fellow

Dept of Public Health, U of Otago School of Medicine, PO Box 7343, Wellington S., New Zealand

Click to like:

THIS WEEK'S POLL