Breast screening policy: are we heading in the right direction?

There is a large body of evidence supporting 2-yearly screening of women aged 50-69 years. There is good evidence for a mortality reduction from mammographic screening in women aged 40 to 49 years but a 1-year interval is required. The lack of specificity of screening in young women does remain a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that a single screen between the ages of 47 and 50 years within a programme screening at 3-year intervals will reduce mortality; the trials showing a mortality benefit in women in their 40s included multiple screening episodes and shorter screening intervals. There is no randomized, controlled trial evidence to support screening in women aged above 70 years and screening this age group will cause greater harm than in younger women through higher rates of over-diagnosis and consequent over-treatment. The randomized phase of the screening age extension, which at the moment is planned to last only 6 years, should not be immediately followed by general implementation of the policy. Only if and when additional mortality reductions and an acceptable balance between benefit and harms are shown to be achieved by the extra screens should the 2007 Cancer Reform Strategy policy on age extension be implemented. Resources saved by delaying or abandoning the roll-out of the age extension could potentially be redirected towards reducing the current 3 year screening interval to 2 years in women aged 50-69 years. However, reducing the screening interval to 2 years for women aged 50-69 years would require significantly more screening invitations and resources than the proposed age extension.     

Updated findings from a help wanted index of job advertisements and an analysis of the policy implications: is the job-market shortage for diagnostic radiologists stabilizing?

OBJECTIVE: The goal of our study is to present the most recent data on the diagnostic radiology job market in the United States using a help wanted index of job advertisements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All diagnostic radiology jobs advertised in the American Journal of Roentgenology and Radiology between January 2000 and December 2001 were coded by practice type, geographic location, and subspecialty and were compared with the previously published results from 1991 through 1999. RESULTS: From January 1999 through December 2001, 15,205 positions were advertised for diagnostic radiologists, representing a 284% average per-month increase as compared with the previous 4-year period. The 12-month rolling average of job advertisements peaked in June 2001 at 476 and has since stabilized. Thirty-six percent of positions advertised were academic, identical to the proportion found from 1995 to 1998. A statistically significant relative increase in jobs advertised was noted in the Midwest, and relative decreases were seen in the Northeast, Northwest, Southwest, and (most recently) California. Statistically significant relative decreases were also observed in the number of general radiology, vascular and interventional, and emergency radiology positions. The demand for mammographers, pediatric radiologists, neuroradiologists, abdominal imagers, and chest radiologists all exhibited statistically significant relative increases. CONCLUSION: The absolute demand for both private and academic radiologists continued to grow throughout the country and in all subspecialties, but the pace of increase has slowed dramatically during the past 12 months, especially in the western United States. Current policy should be directed toward training for the areas of greatest need.     

Ethical acceptability, health policy and foods biotechnology based foods: is there a third way between the precaution principle and an overly enthusiastic dissemination of GMO?

The demand for consumer safety with regard to the food-processing industry is becoming, legitimately, more and more urgent. If ingested drugs can carry deleterious effects that exceed the beneficial effect that the research was initially undertaken for, then the same can only be the case for foods that stem from the same new biotechnologies, zero risk being non existent. There are two conflicting viewpoints about the possible risks linked to genetically modified organisms: a posteriori protection (based on vigilance once the product is on the market) and an a priori protection (at present usually supported by the precaution principle). We suggest a third way, which ensures consumer safety, but doesn't hinder scientific progress. Just as there are regulations for the protection of human subjects in biomedical research and regulations for the use of drugs after they are marketed, so should such regulations be introduced in the domains of food production that use biotechnologies. We therefore suggest that the scientific community and the food-processing industry develop evaluation protocols for new foods like the ones that exist for drugs. We thus offer thirteen regulations, based on the Helsinki declaration, in order to establish these protocols. These proposals, applied to food-processing research, would enable the industry to return confidence to consumers and thus avoid the random blocking of scientific progress, which is a source of health for the greater population.