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

Basic issues in population screening for cancer.

P Cole, A S Morrison

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute
    |May 1, 1980
    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

    The advantages of creating a positive radiation safety culture in the higher education and research sectors.

    Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection·2015
    Same author

    Strategies for engaging with future radiation protection professionals: a public outreach case study.

    Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection·2015
    Same author

    [Deaf stigma in mental health, the example of mental health].

    Revue medicale suisse·2015
    Same author

    A fit for purpose training programme for the decontamination of personnel.

    Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection·2015
    Same author

    Developing the radiation protection safety culture in the UK.

    Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection·2014
    Same author

    Allergic rhinitis in South Africa: 2012 guidelines.

    South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde·2012
    Same journal

    Response to Wang et al. and Shen et al.

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026
    Same journal

    Cluster randomized controlled trial of decision support for breast cancer chemoprevention, MiCHOICE.

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026
    Same journal

    Beyond R2: Assessing quality of trial level surrogate endpoints in colorectal cancer.

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026
    Same journal

    A novel classification of small bowel adenocarcinoma based on the hidden genome classifier: a multi-institutional study.

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026
    Same journal

    Response to Yu, Wang and Ge.

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026
    Same journal

    Re: Cardiovascular disease risk after radiotherapy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026
    See all related articles

    Cancer screening programs offer potential benefits but face challenges in evaluation and potential harms. Optimizing screening requires careful consideration of cancer characteristics, test specificity, and bias mitigation for effective cancer control.

    Area of Science:

    • Oncology
    • Public Health
    • Biostatistics

    Background:

    • Population screening for cancer control remains controversial due to disagreements on objectives, benefits, costs, and adverse effects.
    • The complexities and difficulties in evaluating cancer screening programs are not widely recognized.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To review the issues pertinent to cancer screening and their interrelationships.
    • To describe characteristics of cancers suitable for screening and features of effective screening tests.
    • To discuss methods for evaluating screening programs, including biases and adverse effects.

    Main Methods:

    • Review of existing literature and principles of cancer screening program evaluation.
    • Analysis of factors influencing the success and validity of screening tests.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Discussion of biases (lead time, length) and potential harms (increased morbidity).

    • Main Results:

    • Emphasis on the prevalence of the detectable preclinical phase for target cancers.
    • Highlighting the importance of test specificity in screening.
    • Identification of biases and adverse effects, including increased morbidity.

    Conclusions:

    • Effective cancer screening requires careful selection of target cancers and appropriate tests.
    • Rigorous evaluation methods are crucial, accounting for biases and adverse effects.
    • Optimizing interscreening intervals is relevant for both cancer control and research.