Screens for gastric cancer using photofluorography due to the high incidence there.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issues recommendations for various cancers:

- Strongly recommends cervical cancer screening in women who are sexually active and have a cervix at least until the age of 65.

- Recommend that Americans be screened for colorectal cancer via fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy starting at age 50 until age 75.

- Evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against screening for skin cancer, oral cancer, lung cancer, or prostate cancer in men under 75.

- Routine screening is not recommended for bladder cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, or prostate cancer.

- Recommends mammography for breast cancer screening every two years from ages 50–74, but does not recommend either breast self-examination or clinical breast examination. A 2013 Cochrane review concluded that breast cancer screening by mammography had no effect in reducing mortality because of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Cancer screening uses medical tests to detect disease in large groups of people who have no symptoms. For individuals with high risk of developing lung cancer, computed tomography (CT) screening can detect cancer and give a person options to respond to it in a way that prolongs life. This form of screening reduces the chance of death from lung cancer by an absolute amount of 0.3% (relative amount of 20%). High risk people are those age 55–74 who have smoked equivalent amount of a pack of cigarettes daily for 30 years including time within the past 15 years.

CT screening is associated with a high rate of falsely positive tests which may result in unneeded treatment. For each true positive scan there are about 19 falsely positives scans. Other concerns include radiation exposure and the cost of testing along with follow up. Research has not found two other available tests—sputum cytology or chest radiograph (CXR) screening tests—to have any benefit.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends yearly screening using low-dose computed tomography in those who have a total smoking history of 30 pack-years and are between 55 and 80 years old until a person has not been smoking for more than 15 years. Screening should not be done in those with other health problems that would make treatment of lung cancer if found not an option. The English National Health Service was in 2014 re-examining the evidence for screening.

Cancer is a stochastic effect of radiation, meaning that it only has a probability of occurrence, as opposed to deterministic effects which always happen over a certain dose threshold. The consensus of the nuclear industry, nuclear regulators, and governments, is that the incidence of cancers due to ionizing radiation can be modeled as increasing linearly with effective radiation dose at a rate of 5.5% per sievert. Individual studies, alternate models, and earlier versions of the industry consensus have produced other risk estimates scattered around this consensus model. There is general agreement that the risk is much higher for infants and fetuses than adults, higher for the middle-aged than for seniors, and higher for women than for men, though there is no quantitative consensus about this. This model is widely accepted for external radiation, but its application to internal contamination is disputed. For example, the model fails to account for the low rates of cancer in early workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory who were exposed to plutonium dust, and the high rates of thyroid cancer in children following the Chernobyl accident, both of which were internal exposure events. The European Committee on Radiation Risk calls the ICRP model "fatally flawed" when it comes to internal exposure.

Radiation can cause cancer in most parts of the body, in all animals, and at any age, although radiation-induced solid tumors usually take 10–15 years, and can take up to 40 years, to become clinically manifest, and radiation-induced leukemias typically require 2–10 years to appear. Some people, such as those with nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome or retinoblastoma, are more susceptible than average to developing cancer from radiation exposure. Children and adolescents are twice as likely to develop radiation-induced leukemia as adults; radiation exposure before birth has ten times the effect.

Radiation exposure can cause cancer in any living tissue, but high-dose whole-body external exposure is most closely associated with leukemia, reflecting the high radiosensitivity of bone marrow. Internal exposures tend to cause cancer in the organs where the radioactive material concentrates, so that radon predominantly causes lung cancer, iodine-131 is most likely to cause thyroid cancer, etc.

The associations between ionizing radiation exposure and the development of cancer are based primarily on the "LSS cohort" of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, the largest human population ever exposed to high levels of ionizing radiation. However this cohort was also exposed to high heat, both from the initial nuclear "flash" of infrared light and following the blast due their exposure to the firestorm and general fires that developed in both cities respectively, so the survivors also underwent Hyperthermia therapy to various degrees. Hyperthermia, or heat exposure following irradiation is well known in the field of radiation therapy to markedly increase the severity of free-radical insults to cells following irradiation. Presently however no attempts have been made to cater for this confounding factor, it is not included or corrected for in the dose-response curves for this group.

Additional data has been collected from recipients of selected medical procedures and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. There is a clear link (see the UNSCEAR 2000 Report, Volume 2: Effects) between the Chernobyl accident and the unusually large number, approximately 1,800, of thyroid cancers reported in contaminated areas, mostly in children.

For low levels of radiation, the biological effects are so small they may not be detected in epidemiological studies. Although radiation may cause cancer at high doses and high dose rates, public health data regarding lower levels of exposure, below about 10 mSv (1,000 mrem), are harder to interpret. To assess the health impacts of lower radiation doses, researchers rely on models of the process by which radiation causes cancer; several models that predict differing levels of risk have emerged.

Studies of occupational workers exposed to chronic low levels of radiation, above normal background, have provided mixed evidence regarding cancer and transgenerational effects. Cancer results, although uncertain, are consistent with estimates of risk based on atomic bomb survivors and suggest that these workers do face a small increase in the probability of developing leukemia and other cancers. One of the most recent and extensive studies of workers was published by Cardis, "et al." in 2005 . There is evidence that low level, brief radiation exposures are not harmful.

The presence of HPV within the tumour has been realised to be an important factor for predicting survival since the 1990s. Tumor HPV status is strongly associated with positive therapeutic response and survival compared with HPV-negative cancer, independent of the treatment modality chosen and even after adjustment for stage. While HPV+OPC patients have a number of favourable demographic features compared to HPV-OPC patients, such differences account for only about ten per cent of the survival difference seen between the two groups. Response rates of over 80% are reported in HPV+ cancer and three-year progression free survival has been reported as 75–82% and 45–57%, respectively, for HPV+ and HPV- cancer, and improving over increasing time. It is likely that HPV+OPC is inherently less maligant than HPV-OPC, since patients treated by surgery alone have a better survival after adjustment for stage. In one study, less than 50% of patients with HPV-OPC were still alive after five years, compared to more than 70% with HPV+OPC and an equivalent stage and disease burden.

In RTOG clinical trial 0129, in which all patients with advanced disease received radiation and chemotherapy, a retrospective analysis (recursive-partitioning analysis, or RPA) at three years identified three risk groups for survival (low, intermediate, and high) based on HPV status, smoking, T stage and N stage ("see" Ang et al., Fig. 2). HPV status was the major determinant of survival, followed by smoking history and stage. 64% were HPV+ and all were in the low and intermediate risk group, with all non-smoking HPV+ patients in the low risk group. 82% of the HPV+ patients were alive at three years compared to 57% of the HPV- patients, a 58% reduction in the risk of death. Locoregional failure is also lower in HPV+, being 14% compared to 35% for HPV-. HPV positivity confers a 50–60% lower risk of disease progression and death, but the use of tobacco is an independently negative prognostic factor. A pooled analysis of HPV+OPC and HPV-OPC patients with disease progression in RTOG trials 0129 and 0522 showed that although less HPV+OPC experienced disease progression (23 v. 40%), the median time to disease progression following treatment was similar (8 months). The majority (65%) of recurrences in both groups occurred within the first year after treatment and were locoregional. HPV+ did not reduce the rate of metastases (about 45% of patients experiencing progression), which are predominantly to the lungs (70%), although some studies have reported a lower rate. with 3-year distant recurrence rates of about 10% for patients treated with primary radiation or chemoradiation. Even if recurrence or metastases occur, HPV positivity still confers an advantage.

By contrast tobacco usage is an independently negative prognostic factor, with decreased response to therapy, increased disease recurrence rates and decreased survival. The negative effects of smoking, increases with amount smoked, particularly

if greater than 10 pack-years. For patients such as those treated on RTOG 0129 with primary chemoradiation, detailed nomograms have been derived from that dataset combined with RTOG 0522, enabling prediction of outcome based on a large number of variables. For instance, a 71 year old married non-smoking high school graduate with a performance status (PS) of 0, and no weight loss or anaemia and a T3N1 HPV+OPC would expect to have a progression-free survival of 92% at 2 years and 88% at 5 years. A 60 year old unmarried nonsmoking high school graduate with a PS of 1, weight loss and anaemia and a T4N2 HPV+OPC would expect to have a survival of 70% at two years and 48% at five years. Less detailed information is available for those treated primarily with surgery, for whom less patients are available, as well as low rates of recurrence (7–10%), but features that have traditionally been useful in predicting prognosis in other head and neck cancers, appear to be less useful in HPV+OPC. These patients are frequently stratified into three risk groups:

- Low risk: No adverse pathological features

- Intermediate risk: T3–T4 primary, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, N2 (AJCC 7)

- High risk: Positive margins, ECE

HPV+OPC patients are less likely to develop other cancers, compared to other head and neck cancer patients. A possible explanation for the favourable impact of HPV+ is "the lower probability of occurrence of 11q13 gene amplification, which is considered to be a factor underlying faster and more frequent recurrence of the disease" Presence of TP53 mutations, a marker for HPV- OPC, is associated with worse prognosis. High grade of p16 staining is thought to be better than HPV PCR analysis in predicting radiotherapy response.

In some situations HPV+OPC may present with cervical lymph nodes but no evident disease of a primary tumour (T0 N1-3) and is therefore classed as Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Unknown Primary Origin. The lack of any such evidence of a primary tumour occurs in 2-4% of patients presenting with metastatic cancer in the cervical nodes. The incidence of HPV positivity is increasing at a similar rate to that seen in OPC. In such situations, resection of the lingual and palatine tonsils, together with neck dissection may be diagnostic and constitute sufficient intervention, since recurrence rates are low.

Breast cancer screening refers to testing otherwise-healthy women for breast cancer in an attempt to achieve an earlier diagnosis under the assumption that early detection will improve outcomes. A number of screening tests have been employed including clinical and self breast exams, mammography, genetic screening, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging.

A clinical or self breast exam involves feeling the breast for lumps or other abnormalities. Clinical breast exams are performed by health care providers, while self-breast exams are performed by the person themselves. Evidence does not support the effectiveness of either type of breast exam, as by the time a lump is large enough to be found it is likely to have been growing for several years and thus soon be large enough to be found without an exam. Mammographic screening for breast cancer uses X-rays to examine the breast for any uncharacteristic masses or lumps. During a screening, the breast is compressed and a technician takes photos from multiple angles. A general mammogram takes photos of the entire breast, while a diagnostic mammogram focuses on a specific lump or area of concern.

A number of national bodies recommend breast cancer screening. For the average woman, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammography every two years in women between the ages of 50 and 74, the Council of Europe recommends mammography between 50 and 69 with most programs using a 2-year frequency, and in Canada screening is recommended between the ages of 50 and 74 at a frequency of 2 to 3 years. These task force reports point out that in addition to unnecessary surgery and anxiety, the risks of more frequent mammograms include a small but significant increase in breast cancer induced by radiation.

The Cochrane collaboration (2013) states that the best quality evidence neither demonstrates a reduction in cancer specific, nor a reduction in all cause mortality from screening mammography. When less rigorous trials are added to the analysis there is a reduction in mortality due to breast cancer of 0.05% (a decrease of 1 in 2000 deaths from breast cancer over 10 years or a relative decrease of 15% from breast cancer). Screening over 10 years results in a 30% increase in rates of over-diagnosis and over-treatment (3 to 14 per 1000) and more than half will have at least one falsely positive test. This has resulted in the view that it is not clear whether mammography screening does more good or harm. Cochrane states that, due to recent improvements in breast cancer treatment, and the risks of false positives from breast cancer screening leading to unnecessary treatment, "it therefore no longer seems beneficial to attend for breast cancer screening" at any age. Whether MRI as a screening method has greater harms or benefits when compared to standard mammography is not known.

Avoidance of recognised risk factors (as described above) is the single most effective form of prevention. Regular dental examinations may identify pre-cancerous lesions in the oral cavity.

When diagnosed early, oral, head and neck cancers can be treated more easily and the chances of survival increase tremendously. As of 2017 it was not known if existing HPV vaccines can help prevent head and neck cancer.

The long-term use of supplemental vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D or vitamin E does not reduce the risk of lung cancer. Some studies suggest that people who eat diets with a higher proportion of vegetables and fruit tend to have a lower risk, but this may be due to confounding—with the lower risk actually due to the association of a high fruit/vegetables diet with less smoking. Several rigorous studies have not demonstrated a clear association between diet and lung cancer risk, although meta-analysis that accounts for smoking status may show benefit from a healthy diet.

Many occupational cancers are preventable. Personal protective gear, workplace controls, and worker education can prevent exposure to carcinogens in the workplace. Tobacco smoking has also been shown to increase the risk of work-related cancers; decreasing or abstaining from smoking can decrease cancer risk.

Agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration have developed safety standards and limits for chemical and radiation exposure.

The first step to diagnosing tonsil carcinoma is to obtain an accurate history from the patient. The physician will also examine the patient for any indicative physical signs. A few tests then, maybe conducted depending on the progress of the disease or if the doctor feels the need for. The tests include:

Fine needle aspiration, blood tests, MRI, x-rays and PET scan.

Diagnosis is typically made based on a history of significant radiation exposure and suitable clinical findings. An absolute lymphocyte count can give a rough estimate of radiation exposure. Time from exposure to vomiting can also give estimates of exposure levels if they are less than 1000 rad.

The basis of deciding the T stage depends on physical examination and imaging of the tumor.

The selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as tamoxifen) reduce the risk of breast cancer but increase the risk of thromboembolism and endometrial cancer. There is no overall change in the risk of death. They are thus not recommended for the prevention of breast cancer in women at average risk but may be offered for those at high risk. The benefit of breast cancer reduction continues for at least five years after stopping a course of treatment with these medications.

An estimated 48,000 cancers are diagnosed yearly in the US that come from occupational causes; this represents approximately 4-10% of total cancer in the United States. It is estimated that 19% of cancers globally are attributed to environmental exposures (including work-related exposures).

Sunscreen is effective and thus recommended to prevent melanoma and squamous-cell carcinoma. There is little evidence that it is effective in preventing basal-cell carcinoma. Other advice to reduce rates of skin cancer includes avoiding sunburning, wearing protective clothing, sunglasses and hats, and attempting to avoid sun exposure or periods of peak exposure. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that people between 9 and 25 years of age be advised to avoid ultraviolet light.

The risk of developing skin cancer can be reduced through a number of measures including decreasing indoor tanning and mid day sun exposure, increasing the use of sunscreen, and avoiding the use of tobacco products.

There is insufficient evidence either for or against screening for skin cancers. Vitamin supplements and antioxidant supplements have not been found to have an effect in prevention. Evidence for a benefit from dietary measures is tentative.

Zinc oxide and titanium oxide are often used in sun screen to provide broad protection from UVA and UVB ranges.

Eating certain foods may decrease the risk of sunburns but this is much less than the protection provided by sunscreen.

Diagnosis is confirmed via biopsy of the tissue(s) suspected to be affected by SCC. For the skin, look under skin biopsy.

The pathological appearance of a squamous cell cancer varies with the depth of the biopsy. For that reason, a biopsy including the subcutaneous tissue and basalar epithelium, to the surface is necessary for correct diagnosis. The performance of a shave biopsy (see skin biopsy) might not acquire enough information for a diagnosis. An inadequate biopsy might be read as actinic keratosis with follicular involvement. A deeper biopsy down to the dermis or subcutaneous tissue might reveal the true cancer. An excision biopsy is ideal, but not practical in most cases. An incisional or punch biopsy is preferred. A shave biopsy is least ideal, especially if only the superficial portion is acquired.

Standard X-rays are still acceptable and readily accessible imaging tools but their resolution and level of anatomical detail are not as good as for computed tomography (CT) scan. In order to definitively confirm cancer in the nasal cavity, a tissue biopsy should be obtained.

In those who are being regularly screened, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor (finasteride and dutasteride) reduce the overall risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer; however, there is insufficient data to determine if they have an effect on the risk of death and may increase the chance of more serious cases.

Staging is a formal procedure to determine how developed the cancer is. This determines treatment options.

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and the International Union Against Cancer (UICC) recommend TNM staging, using a uniform scheme for non-small cell lung carcinoma, small-cell lung carcinoma and broncho-pulmonary carcinoid tumors. With TNM staging, the cancer is classified based on the size of the tumor and spread to lymph nodes and other organs. As the tumor grows in size and the areas affected become larger, the staging of the cancer becomes more advanced as well.

There are several components of NSCLC staging which then influence physicians' treatment strategies. The lung tumor itself is typically assessed both radiographically for overall size as well as by a pathologist under the microscope to identify specific genetic markers or to see if there has been invasion into important structures within the chest (e.g., bronchus or pleural cavity). Next, the patient's nearby lymph nodes within the chest cavity known as the mediastinum will be checked for disease involvement. Finally, the patient will be evaluated for more distant sites of metastatic disease, most typically with brain imaging and or scans of the bones.

Although early-stage head and neck cancers (especially laryngeal and oral cavity) have high cure rates, up to 50% of people with head and neck cancer present with advanced disease.

Cure rates decrease in locally advanced cases, whose probability of cure is inversely related to tumor size and even more so to the extent of regional node involvement.

Consensus panels in America (AJCC) and Europe (UICC) have established staging systems for head and neck squamous-cell cancers. These staging systems attempt to standardize clinical trial criteria for research studies, and attempt to define prognostic categories of disease. Squamous cell cancers of the head and neck are staged according to the TNM classification system, where T is the size and configuration of the tumor, N is the presence or absence of lymph node metastases, and M is the presence or absence of distant metastases. The T, N, and M characteristics are combined to produce a “stage” of the cancer, from I to IVB.

Prostate cancer screening is an attempt to find unsuspected cancers. Initial screens may lead to more invasive follow-up tests such as a biopsy. Options include the digital rectal exam (DRE) and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Such screening is controversial and, in some people, may lead to unnecessary disruption and possibly harmful consequences. Routine screening with either a DRE or PSA is not supported by the evidence as there is no mortality benefit from screening.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against the PSA test for prostate cancer screening in healthy men regardless of age. They concluded that the potential benefit of testing does not outweigh the expected harms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shared that conclusion. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American College of Physicians discourages screening for those who are expected to live less than ten to fifteen years, while in those with a greater life expectancy a decision should be made by the person in question based on the potential risks and benefits. In general, they concluded, "it is uncertain whether the benefits associated with PSA testing for prostate cancer screening are worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment." American Urological Association (AUA 2013) guidelines call for weighing the benefits of preventing prostate cancer mortality in 1 man for every 1,000 men screened over a ten-year period against the known harms associated with diagnostic tests and treatment. The AUA recommends screening decisions in those 55 to 69 be based on shared decision making, and that if screening is performed it should occur no more often than every two years.

Treatment is dependent on type of cancer, location of the cancer, age of the person, and whether the cancer is primary or a recurrence. Treatment is also determined by the specific type of cancer. For a small basal-cell cancer in a young person, the treatment with the best cure rate (Mohs surgery or CCPDMA) might be indicated. In the case of an elderly frail man with multiple complicating medical problems, a difficult to excise basal-cell cancer of the nose might warrant radiation therapy (slightly lower cure rate) or no treatment at all. Topical chemotherapy might be indicated for large superficial basal-cell carcinoma for good cosmetic outcome, whereas it might be inadequate for invasive nodular basal-cell carcinoma or invasive squamous-cell carcinoma.. In general, melanoma is poorly responsive to radiation or chemotherapy.

For low-risk disease, radiation therapy (external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy), topical chemotherapy (imiquimod or 5-fluorouracil) and cryotherapy (freezing the cancer off) can provide adequate control of the disease; all of them, however, may have lower overall cure rates than certain type of surgery. Other modalities of treatment such as photodynamic therapy, topical chemotherapy, electrodesiccation and curettage can be found in the discussions of basal-cell carcinoma and squamous-cell carcinoma.

Mohs' micrographic surgery (Mohs surgery) is a technique used to remove the cancer with the least amount of surrounding tissue and the edges are checked immediately to see if tumor is found. This provides the opportunity to remove the least amount of tissue and provide the best cosmetically favorable results. This is especially important for areas where excess skin is limited, such as the face. Cure rates are equivalent to wide excision. Special training is required to perform this technique. An alternative method is CCPDMA and can be performed by a pathologist not familiar with Mohs surgery.

In the case of disease that has spread (metastasized), further surgical procedures or chemotherapy may be required.

Treatments for metastatic melanoma include biologic immunotherapy agents ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab; BRAF inhibitors, such as vemurafenib and dabrafenib; and a MEK inhibitor trametinib.

The longer that humans are subjected to radiation the larger the dose will be. The advice in the nuclear war manual entitled "Nuclear War Survival Skills" published by Cresson Kearny in the U.S. was that if one needed to leave the shelter then this should be done as rapidly as possible to minimize exposure.

In chapter 12, he states that ""[q]uickly putting or dumping wastes outside is not hazardous once fallout is no longer being deposited. For example, assume the shelter is in an area of heavy fallout and the dose rate outside is 400 roentgen (R) per hour, enough to give a potentially fatal dose in about an hour to a person exposed in the open. If a person needs to be exposed for only 10 seconds to dump a bucket, in this 1/360 of an hour he will receive a dose of only about 1 R. Under war conditions, an additional 1-R dose is of little concern."" In peacetime, radiation workers are taught to work as quickly as possible when performing a task which exposes them to radiation. For instance, the recovery of a lost radiography source should be done as quickly as possible.