|
| |
 |
|
To Screen Or Not To Screen |
By
Dr CH
Yip
What is screening?
Screening for a disease means that a
test, investigation or procedure is done on a person who has no
symptoms of any disease in the hope of detecting the
disease. This is one of the methods for detecting a disease
early where the chance of cure is the highest.
A population-based screening programme is a programme where
a test is applied to the susceptible population (the
population at risk of that particular disease) in the hope
of detecting a cancer before any symptoms occur.
|
|
What does an effective screening
programme achieve?
|
|
If a
screening programme is effective, the end result that can be
achieved is a reduction in the number of deaths due to that
disease (which was screened) due to early detection and
treatment.
In
cancer, there are very few tests that have been proven by
large scale studies to achieve this objective. Large scale
studies means studies that have been performed in large
enough number of people to draw a conclusion that can be
applied to the general population. Small scale studies on
the other hand may only reflect the disease pattern in that
small group of people –say a 100 people. Therefore, it would
not be right to apply the results of a small scale study and
generalise it to the whole population.
|
|
Population based screening
programmes – Where, When and How is it useful? |
Population based screening
(i.e. screening to be applied to the general population in a
country) is very expensive and before embarking on a
population based screening programme for any disease, the
following questions have to be considered.
1. Is the disease important enough to merit a screening
programme?
The commonest cancers in Malaysia are the breast in females
and the lungs in males. Other common cancers are those of
the colon (large intestine) and cervix.
2. Is there a reliable test for the disease?
The only two screening tests which has been extensively
tested and found to be reliable are mammography for breast
cancer and PAP smear for cervical cancer.
Screening by occult blood in the faeces to look for colon
cancer has not been found to be reliable. Studies on
screening for a cancer of the colon by sigmodoscopy (where a
tube is passed into the large intestine via the anus to look
for a growth) has not been conclusive.
Screening by a tumour marker in the blood called PSA
(prostate specific antigen) has been approved by the FDA
(Food and Drug Administration) in USA for screening for
prostate cancer. However for those with raised levels, the
chance of prostate cancer is only around 30%. This is
considered justified in the USA, because prostate cancer has
the highest incidence in USA. But in Malaysia, prostate
cancer is only the 6th commonest cancer (according to the
National Cancer Registry 2002 report).
3. Does screening make any difference to the mortality
rate of the disease?
Large studies on screening mammography in the 1960’s to
1980’s in Western countries have demonstrated an almost 30%
reduction in the deaths from breast cancer in most studies,
although there are some controversial studies where such a
result was not demonstrated. The effect on the death rate
was only seen in the group aged 50-74 years. However recent
data has shown that there is a decrease in deaths even in
the 40-49 year age group.
4. Can we be reassured if the screening test is normal or
negative for the disease concerned?
No, because cancers can occur in the interval between
screenings. Another important reason is that there are false
negatives in every test. This means, a negative result is
obtained even though the disease (such as cancer) is
present. However, rate of false negatives vary depending on
what test and for what disease and also the conditions and
quality assurance of the tests being run.
5. What is the tests show we may have a disease (such as
cancer) – when in actual fact, we don’t have that disease?
Can this actually happen? Why?
False positives (where the test is positive but the person
does not have the disease) can also occur. This leads to a
lot of anxiety. The person may be subjected to a lot of
unnecessary and expensive tests to confirm the presence or
absence of the disease. False positives just like false
negatives are part and parcel of any test and accepted by
medical professionals. Therefore, it is important that your
tests are interpreted by a qualified medical professional
who can explain the results to you and not result in
unnecessary anxiety.
And just like false negatives, the percentage of tests which
are false positive vary again from test to test and applied
to which disease. The quality assurance of the tests and
conditions under which it was done and the quality of
interpretation of the test in general all contribute to the
accuracy of the test.
Take the example of a laboratory test on a blood sample. Do
not forget, laboratory errors can occurs, including mix up
of specimens or poor storage conditions resulting in the
specimen of blood being no longer in the right state for the
test to be run on it.
6. Can we intervene successfully? In other words, if we
act on the basis of a positive test for a disease such as
cancer, will we make a difference to the life of the person
concerned?
In almost every cancer, an early diagnosis leads to a better
chance of cure. Every cancer when diagnosed early can be
successfully treated.
|
|
Barriers to screening |
1. Education
One of the most important barriers to screening is
education. There is a lack of awareness by patients of the
benefits of screening. There is also misinformation on what
screening tests are beneficial.
2. Cost-benefit
The high cost and low yield of any screening examination is
a definite barrier to screening. Even in mammography which
is the most extensively studied modality for screening for
breast cancer, the pick-up rate in the United Kingdom which
has a population based screening programme is only 6-7 per
1000 women screened.
3. Personnel
Screening requires a lot of personnel - radiologists,
surgeons, pathologists, nurses and radiographers. To
maintain good quality control, training of man-power and
teamwork is extremely important. Population-based screening
in countries where resources are limited is probably not
justified.
|
|
What about screening of
individuals? |
Certainly, if a person has a high risk of developing a
disease, for example if you have a strong family of breast
cancer or colon cancer, then screening for these diseases
will help to diagnose the cancer earlier. Tumour markers are
generally useless for early detection of cancer as they tend
to rise only in late stages.
|
|
Therefore, what shall we do, To
Screen or Not To Screen? |
So… in
the end, if you are perfectly fit and healthy, with no
symptoms, and there is no strong family history of any
particular cancer, should you subject yourself to a test
just to find out if you have cancer or not?
First of all, when you do decide to be screened, you must
find out how reliable the test is. If it is a test with a
high rate of false negatives (negative test, even when you
have a cancer), you will get a false sense of complacency,
even if you have symptoms of a particular cancer.
If it is a test with a high rate of false positives (test
that is positive even when you don’t have a disease/cancer),
you will go through a period of anxiety, and probably go
through more unnecessary and expensive tests before you are
proven not to have cancer.
Second thing to consider is whether the cancer you are
screening for is common or not. If I were a woman, and the
commonest cancers in women are breast cancer and cervical
cancer, and knowing that there is a reliable test available,
I would choose to be screened for those diseases.
One must remember that if any abnormality is found, one must
be prepared to go on to be investigated further with further
tests and biopsies. In any test, there are false negative
and false positives, and one must accept that no one test is
perfect. |
|
|
|
Please
click here for more
Topics of Interest!
|
|
|
Copyright © 2001-2008 College of Radiology, Academy of Medicine of Malaysia
All Rights Reserved
Terms
of Use Last
Updated:
Friday, 22 April 2005 |
|