Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Statistical considerations in cancer screening programs.

P C Prorok1, R J Connor, S G Baker

  • 1Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.

The Urologic Clinics of North America
|November 1, 1990
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Hereditary angio-oedema in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde·2018
Same author

Active follow-up versus passive linkage with cancer registries for case ascertainment in a cohort.

Cancer epidemiology·2016
Same author

Choledochotomy and primary repair of extrahepatic biliary duct rupture in seven dogs and two cats.

The Journal of small animal practice·2010
Same author

Comparison of four commercial devices to measure limb circumference in dogs.

Veterinary and comparative orthopaedics and traumatology : V.C.O.T·2010
Same author

Effect of bandaging on post-operative swelling after tibial plateau levelling osteotomy.

Veterinary and comparative orthopaedics and traumatology : V.C.O.T·2010
Same author

Enhancement of intravesical delivery with Syn3 potentiates interferon-alpha2b gene therapy for superficial bladder cancer.

Cytokine & growth factor reviews·2007
Same journal

An Unprecedented Era of Innovation in Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

The Urologic clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Hubert Humphrey's Bladder Cancer: If He Could Have Time Traveled, Would that Have Changed the Outcome?

The Urologic clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Key Clinical Trials Shaping the Future of Superficial High-Risk Bladder Cancer Management.

The Urologic clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Future Directions: Artificial Intelligence and Digital Tools in Bladder Cancer Care.

The Urologic clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Economic Considerations in the Management of Superficial Bladder Cancer.

The Urologic clinics of North America·2026
Same journal

Patient-Centered Approaches to Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Care.

The Urologic clinics of North America·2026
See all related articles

Evaluating cancer screening programs requires assessing test accuracy and using randomized controlled trials. Cost-effectiveness analysis helps determine if screening benefits outweigh costs, crucial for informed decisions on cancer early detection.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Medical Screening
  • Health Economics

Background:

  • Cancer screening aims for early detection and reduced mortality.
  • Evaluating screening program effectiveness is complex.
  • Key challenges include test accuracy (specificity) and avoiding biases.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To outline the essential components for evaluating cancer screening programs.
  • To emphasize the importance of accurate screening tests and appropriate trial design.
  • To introduce cost-effectiveness analysis as a tool for decision-making.

Main Methods:

  • Assessing screening tests for early cancer detection and minimizing false positives (high specificity required).
  • Utilizing randomized controlled trials with cancer-specific mortality as the primary endpoint.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Employing cost-effectiveness analysis to compare different screening programs.

    • Main Results:

    • Current prostate cancer screening tests lack the high specificity needed, leading to many false positives.
    • Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for evaluating screening impact but are lengthy and costly.
    • Cost-effectiveness analysis provides a framework for resource allocation based on benefit-cost ratios.

    Conclusions:

    • Rigorous evaluation of cancer screening programs is critical for effective early detection.
    • High specificity in screening tests and appropriate trial endpoints are essential.
    • Cost-effectiveness analysis is a valuable tool for optimizing screening program implementation and resource allocation.