You are here

Cancer

Find evidence-based information and recommendations related to Cancer.

Strength of Evidence Topic Area Publication Date Resource Type
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer, Educational and Community-Based Programs
Skin Cancer: Interventions in Outdoor Recreational and Tourism Settings

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2014 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer, Heart Disease and Stroke
Vitamin Supplementation to Prevent Cancer and CVD: Counseling – Beta Carotene (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2014 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Genomics, Cancer
BRCA-Related Cancer: Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2013 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Genomics, Cancer
BRCA-Related Cancer: Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing – For Low-Risk Women (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2013 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Breast Cancer Screening Intervention Programs – RTIPS

NIH/NCI
2013 Randomized Controlled Trial, Field-Based Summary or Case Study, Experimental Study
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Breast Cancer: Medication for Risk Reduction (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2013 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Breast Cancer: Medications for Risk Reduction (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2013 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Skin Cancer: Child Care Center-Based Interventions

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2013 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer, Occupational Safety and Health
Skin Cancer: Interventions in Outdoor Occupational Settings

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2013 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Survivorship Intervention Programs – RTIPs

NIH/NCI
2012 Randomized Controlled Trial, Experimental Study, Other
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cervical Cancer Screening (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cervical Cancer Screening Intervention Programs – RTIPs

NIH/NCI
2012 Non-Systematic Review, Randomized Controlled Trial, Experimental Study
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cervical Cancer: Screening – HPV Testing in Women Younger Than Age 30 (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cervical Cancer: Screening – Women Older Than Age 65 Who Have Had Adequate Prior Screening (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cervical Cancer: Screening – Women Who Have Had a Hysterectomy (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cervical Cancer: Screening – Women Younger Than Age 21 (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention Programs – RTIPs

NIH/NCI
2012 Randomized Controlled Trial, Field-Based Summary or Case Study, Experimental Study
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Increasing Cancer Screening: Client Reminders—Updated recommendations for client- and provider-oriented interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. (Community Guide

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Increasing Cancer Screening: Reducing Client Out-of-Pocket Costs—Updated recommendations for client- and provider-oriented interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Ovarian Cancer: Screening

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Preventing Skin Cancer: Primary and Middle School-Based Interventions

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Prostate Cancer: Screening (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Adolescent Health, Cancer
Skin Cancer: Counseling

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Adolescent Health, Cancer
Skin Cancer: Counseling (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer, Educational and Community-Based Programs
Skin Cancer: Multicomponent Community-Wide Interventions

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Skin Cancer: Primary and Middle School-Based Interventions

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Sun Safety Intervention Programs – RTIPs

NIH/NCI
2012 Randomized Controlled Trial, Experimental Study
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Disability and Health, Cancer
Updated Recommendations for Client- and Provider-Oriented Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Updated Recommendations for Client- and Provider-Oriented Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening – One-on-One Education (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Updated Recommendations for Client- and Provider-Oriented Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening – Provider Assessment and Feedback (Community Guide Recommendati

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Updated Recommendations for Client- And Provider-Oriented Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening – Recommendations to Increase Cancer Screening Through Use of Cl

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2012 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Adolescent Health, Cancer
Testicular Cancer: Screening – Adolescent and Adult Men (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2011 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Client Reminders – Cervical Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Client Reminders – Colorectal Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: One-on-One Education for Clients – Cervical Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: One-on-One Education for Clients – Colorectal Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Access to Health Services, Cancer, Disability and Health
Cancer Screening: Reducing Structural Barriers for Clients – Breast Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Access to Health Services, Cancer, Disability and Health
Cancer Screening: Reducing Structural Barriers for Clients – Colorectal Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer, Educational and Community-Based Programs, Family Planning
Health Communication and Social Marketing: Campaigns That Include Mass Media and Health-Related Product Distribution

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Increasing Cancer Screening: Client Reminders (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2010 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Breast Cancer Screening: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Breast Cancer: Screening (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Breast Cancer: Screening – Teaching Breast Self-Examination

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Provider Assessment and Feedback – Cervical Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Provider Assessment and Feedback – Colorectal Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Access to Health Services, Cancer
Cancer Screening: Reducing Client Out-of-Pocket Costs – Breast Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Increasing Cancer Screening: Group Education for Clients (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2009 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Colorectal Cancer: Screening – Adults Ages 50 to 75

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2008 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Colorectal Cancer: Screening – Adults Older Than Age 85

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2008 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Screening for Colorectal Cancer (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2008 Systematic Review, Randomized Controlled Trial, Expert Opinion, Field-Based Summary or Case Study, Experimental Study
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Aspirin/NSAIDs for Prevention of Colorectal Cancer: Preventive Medication – All Adults, Average Risk (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2007 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Provider Reminder and Recall Systems – Breast Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2006 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Provider Reminder and Recall Systems – Cervical Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task
2006 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Provider Reminder and Recall Systems – Colorectal Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2006 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Small Media Targeting Clients – Cervical Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2005 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Increasing Cancer Screening: Small Media Targeting Clients (Community Guide Recommendation)

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2005 Systematic Review
4 out of 4
4 out of 4
Cancer
Pancreatic Cancer: Screening – Adults, Asymptomatic (Clinical Guide Recommendation)

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
2004 Systematic Review
3 out of 4
3 out of 4
Cancer
Cancer Screening: Small Media Targeting Clients – Colorectal Cancer

Community Preventive Services Task Force
2005 Systematic Review

Clinical Recommendations

The following clinical recommendations come from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Screening for Cervical Cancer

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for cervical cancer in women ages 21 to 65 years with cytology (Pap smear) every 3 years or, for women ages 30 to 65 years who want to lengthen the screening interval, screening with a

Screening for Colorectal Cancer

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) using fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy, in adults, beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. The risks and benefi

Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that women whose family history is associated with an increased risk for deleterious mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes be referred for genetic counseling and evaluation for BRCA testing.

Screening for Breast Cancer

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.

Behavioral Counseling to Prevent Skin Cancer

The U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends counseling children, adolescents, and young adults aged 10 to 24 years who have fair skin about minimizing their exposure to ultraviolet radiation to reduce risk for skin cancer.
Back to Top

Consumer Information

The following consumer resources are from healthfinder.gov.

Use these questions to talk to your doctor about prostate cancer screening.
A mammogram (an X-ray of the breast) can help your doctor find breast cancer early. Use these questions to start a conversation with your doctor about when and how often to get a mammogram.
Cervical cancer can be prevented with regular screening tests (called Pap tests) and follow-up care.
Get tested regularly for colorectal cancer starting at age 50. All it takes is a special exam (called a screening).
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun is the main cause of skin cancer. The best way to prevent skin cancer is to protect your skin from the sun.
You can lower your risk of serious health problems by making small changes. Start by asking a doctor which screening tests you need this year.
A mammogram can help your doctor find breast cancer early. It's easier to treat breast cancer when it’s found early.
Genetic testing can help you understand your risk for cancer. Use these questions to start a conversation with your doctor about whether genetic testing is right for you.
If family members have had breast or ovarian cancer, ask a doctor about your risk.
The HPV vaccine helps protect against HPV (human papillomavirus), which is a cause of cervical cancer in women and genital warts and anal cancer in men and women. Use these questions to talk with the doctor about getting the HPV vaccine for your child.
Use these tips to tell a friend or family member how important it is to get screened for colorectal cancer.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer in the United States. Most people who develop lung cancer get it from smoking.
Back to Top

Evidence-Based Resources Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What do the ratings mean?
All of the resources in this tool are based on intervention evaluations or studies that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability. The ratings indicate how strong the evidence is.

4 stars 
4 out of 4
These resources are based on rigorous evidence. Resources with this rating include systematic reviews of published intervention evaluations or studies that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Recommendations of the Community Preventive Services Task Force
  • Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
  • Systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals

3 Stars 
3 out of 4

These resources are based on strong evidence. Resources with this rating include non-systematic reviews of published intervention evaluations or studies that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Non-systematic reviews published by the Federal Government 
  • Non-systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals

2 Stars 
2 out of 4
These resources are based on moderate evidence. Resources with this rating include intervention evaluations or studies with peer review that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Journal articles of individual studies
  • Published intervention research
  • Published pilot studies

1 Star 
1 out of 4
These resources are based on weak evidence. Resources with this rating include intervention evaluations or studies without peer review that have evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, reach, sustainability, and transferability.

Examples: 

  • Unpublished intervention research
  • Unpublished pilot studies
  • Unpublished case studies
  • Unpublished field-based summaries

What are the differences between the ratings?
4 vs. 3: A rating of 4 requires a formal, comprehensive, and systematic review of all relevant literature whereas a rating of 3 only requires an informal, non-comprehensive, non-systematic review of some but not all relevant literature.

3 vs. 2: A rating of 3 requires a review of multiple evaluations or studies whereas a rating of 2 only requires one evaluation or study.

2 vs. 1: A rating of 2 requires peer review whereas a rating of 1 does not require peer review.

What criteria were used to identify these resources?
Each of the selected evidence-based resources has been rated and classified according to the criteria in the rating system. These criteria include:

  • Is it a formal, comprehensive, systematic review?
  • Was it peer reviewed and published?
  • Does it include multiple evaluations or studies? 

The rating system does not measure all dimensions of quality. Some other measures that are not included in the rating system are:

  • Statistical significance
  • Effect size (e.g., magnitude of effect)
  • Meaningfulness of effect
  • Additional effect over control
  • Study design (e.g., sample size, power, internal validity, external validity, generalizability, potential biases, and potential confounders)

Can you define the types of resources displayed?
Systematic Review: A systematic review is a critical assessment and evaluation of all research studies that address a particular issue. Researchers use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set of specific criteria. A systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The systematic review may or may not include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis. 

Nonsystematic Review: A non-systematic review is a critical assessment and evaluation of some but not all research studies that address a particular issue. Researchers do not use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic, possibly using a set of specific criteria. A non-systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The non-systematic review may or may not include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis. 

Randomized Control Trial: A randomized control trial is a controlled clinical trial that randomly (by chance) assigns participants to two or more groups. There are various methods to randomize study participants to their groups. 

Cohort Study: A cohort study is a clinical research study in which people who presently have a certain condition or receive a particular treatment are followed over time and compared with another group of people who are not affected by the condition. 

Cross-Sectional or Prevalence Study: A cross-sectional or prevalence study is a study that examines how often or how frequently a disease or condition occurs in a group of people. Prevalence is calculated by dividing the number of people who have the disease or condition by the total number of people in the group. 

Case-Control Study: A case-control study identifies all incident cases that develop the outcome of interest and compares their exposure history with the exposure history of controls sampled at random from everyone within the cohort who is still at risk for developing the outcome of interest. 

Expert Opinion: The opinion of someone widely recognized as a reliable source of knowledge, technique, or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain.

Pilot Study: A pilot study is a small-scale experiment or set of observations undertaken to decide how and whether to launch a full-scale project. 

Experimental Study: An experimental study is a type of evaluation that seeks to determine whether a program or intervention had the intended causal effect on program participants.

Practice-based example: A practice-based example is an original investigation undertaken in order to gain new knowledge partly by means of practice and the outcomes of that practice.

Peer-Reviewed: A publication that contains original articles that have been written by scientists and evaluated for technical and scientific quality and correctness by other experts in the same field. 

What are the Leading Health Indicators (LHIs)?
Healthy People 2020 provides a comprehensive set of 10-year national goals and objectives for improving the health of all Americans. Healthy People 2020 is composed of more than 1,200 objectives across 42 Topic Areas. 

A smaller set of Healthy People 2020 objectives, called Leading Health Indicators, has been selected to communicate high-priority health issues and actions that can be taken to address them. 

The 12 Leading Health Indicator topics are:

  • Access to Health Services
  • Clinical Preventive Services
  • Environmental Quality
  • Injury and Violence
  • Maternal, Infant, and Child Health
  • Mental Health
  • Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity
  • Oral Health
  • Reproductive and Sexual Health
  • Social Determinants
  • Substance Abuse
  • Tobacco

For more information, visit: Leading Health Indicators

What are some search tips for using the evidence-based resources tool?

  • The shading of the check boxes will show you what criteria can be searched. You might want to begin with a broad search first. You can always narrow your results further using the Search Criteria sidebar on the left-hand side of the page.
  • Be sure to reset the search form before starting a new search. A link is provided at the top of the search results.
  • When filling out your search, be sure to scroll through all the choices before clicking on the Search button.
  • A quick way to change your search is to stay on the results page and use the Search Criteria sidebar. Your search results will be filtered accordingly.

Why can’t I search the database for some Topic Areas and other categories of information?
Topic Areas are dimmed in the dropdown menus to indicate that there are no resources available in the database at the time of your search. The same is true for specific search criteria, such as age ranges. We are continually adding evidence-based resources to the database. As resources become available, you will have the opportunity to choose from more Topic Areas, objectives, and search criteria.

Who developed this evidence-based resource tool?
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion developed this tool with guidance, input, and support from: 

  • The Healthy People 2020 Federal Interagency Workgroup (FIW) 
  • The FIW’s Implementation Strategies Subgroup
  • The Healthy People 2020 Workgroup Coordinators
  • The National Institutes of Health’s Office of Disease Prevention

Who identified these evidence-based resources?
Subject matter experts at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services who comprise the Healthy
People 2020 Workgroup Coordinators for the relevant Healthy People 2020 Topic Area. The list of Healthy People Topic Areas can be found here. The list of Healthy People Workgroup Coordinators can be found here.

Who developed the rating system?
The rating system was: 

  • Developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Best Practices Workgroup
  • Revised by the Healthy People 2020 Implementation Strategies Subgroup
  • Approved by the Healthy People 2020 Federal Interagency Workgroup

The ratings were developed to identify evidence-based resources and interventions that may be used to achieve targets set forth in Healthy People 2020.  The Healthy People 2020 evidence-based resource tool is managed by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and supported, in part, by funds from the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Disease Prevention.