A value framework for cancer screening: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians.

Experts, professional societies, and consumer groups often recommend different strategies for cancer screening. These strategies vary in the intensity of their search for asymptomatic lesions and in their value. This article outlines a framework for thinking about the value of varying intensities of cancer screening. The authors conclude that increasing intensity beyond an optimal level leads to low-value screening and speculate about pressures that encourage overly intensive, low-value screening.

[1]  T. Wilt,et al.  Screening for cancer: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians. , 2015, Annals of internal medicine.

[2]  T. Hoffmann,et al.  Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. , 2015, JAMA internal medicine.

[3]  C. Colla Swimming against the current--what might work to reduce low-value care? , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  A. Gawande,et al.  Avoiding low-value care. , 2014, New England Journal of Medicine.

[5]  William Hazelton,et al.  Benefits and Harms of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Strategies: A Comparative Modeling Study for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2014, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  H. Welch,et al.  Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[7]  Carmen L. Lewis,et al.  The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[8]  Rongwei Fu,et al.  Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  C. Berg,et al.  Targeting of low-dose CT screening according to the risk of lung-cancer death. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  M. LeFevre Swimming upstream: doing less in health care is hard: comment on "No Papanicolaou tests in women younger than 21 years or after hysterectomy for benign disease" and "Cervical cancer screening intervals, 2006 to 2009". , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[11]  P. Hillard,et al.  No Papanicolaou tests in women younger than 21 years or after hysterectomy for benign disease. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[12]  Stacy M Carter,et al.  Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  John Brodersen,et al.  Long-Term Psychosocial Consequences of False-Positive Screening Mammography , 2013, The Annals of Family Medicine.

[14]  Lea Anne Gardner,et al.  Design and Use of Performance Measures to Decrease Low-Value Services and Achieve Cost-Conscious Care , 2013, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  V. Moyer What We Don't Know Can Hurt Our Patients: Physician Innumeracy and Overuse of Screening Tests , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  S. Woolf,et al.  The harms of screening: new attention to an old concern. , 2012, JAMA.

[17]  Salomeh Keyhani,et al.  Overuse of health care services in the United States: an understudied problem. , 2012, Archives of internal medicine.

[18]  Linda Humphrey,et al.  Appropriate Use of Screening and Diagnostic Tests to Foster High-Value, Cost-Conscious Care , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[19]  Jennifer S Lin,et al.  Liquid-Based Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing to Screen for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Too Little? Too Much? Primary care physicians' views on US health care: a brief report. , 2011, Archives of internal medicine.

[21]  V. Moyer,et al.  Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive services task force. , 2011, Epidemiologic reviews.

[22]  Russell P. Harris Overview of screening: where we are and where we may be headed. , 2011, Epidemiologic reviews.

[23]  S. Kulasingam,et al.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2011 .

[24]  Douglas K Owens,et al.  High-Value, Cost-Conscious Health Care: Concepts for Clinicians to Evaluate the Benefits, Harms, and Costs of Medical Interventions , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  H. Welch,et al.  Overdiagnosis in cancer. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  D. Berry,et al.  Breast Cancer Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms (Annals of Internal Medicine (2009) 151, (738-747)) , 2010 .

[27]  H. Welch,et al.  Using the Results of a Baseline and a Surveillance Colonoscopy to Predict Recurrent Adenomas With High-Risk Characteristics , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[28]  Amy B. Knudsen,et al.  Evaluating Test Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Decision Analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[29]  Rongwei Fu,et al.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Targeted, Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[30]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Older Patients Perceptions of “Unnecessary” Tests and Referrals , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[31]  Victor R Fuchs,et al.  The perfect storm of overutilization. , 2008, JAMA.

[32]  A. Garber A Menu without Prices , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[33]  I. Heath American College of Physicians Ethics Manual (Fifth Edition) , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[34]  Noel T Brewer,et al.  Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[35]  Floyd J Fowler,et al.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. , 2004, JAMA.

[36]  Floyd J Fowler,et al.  Why is prostate cancer screening so common when the evidence is so uncertain? A system without negative feedback. , 2002, The American journal of medicine.

[37]  E. Fisher,et al.  Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care: how might more be worse? , 1999, JAMA.

[38]  D. Grady,et al.  Too much medicine happens too often: the teachable moment and a call for manuscripts from clinical trainees. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[39]  D. Kopans,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography: A Cohort Study , 2012 .

[40]  Marvin Zelen,et al.  Clinical Guidelines Annals of Internal Medicine Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening , 2022 .