This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John D. Hainsworth, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1995;155(19):2035-2036.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IN THIS ISSUE of the ARCHIVES, Schapira and Jarrett¹ critically examine the cost vs the benefit of various diagnostic procedures in the evaluation of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. In an era with an increasing focus on the cost-effectiveness of therapy, this article is one of a burgeoning number of analyses aimed at optimizing the use of the American health care dollar. It is likely that diseases considered to be poorly treated, both malignant and nonmalignant, will be frequent targets for such analysis.

For most patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site, treatment remains relatively ineffective. It has been well documented that once the diagnosis of metastatic cancer is established, the yield of extensive radiologic and endoscopic procedures in identifying a primary site is low. All current textbooks of internal medicine and medical oncology recommend a limited diagnostic evaluation, including only a routine chemistry profile, hemogram, chest . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Sarah Cannon—Minnie Pearl Cancer Center Centennial Medical Center Nashville, TN 37203

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?