Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27507769›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2016

Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps.

Pamela M Marcus, Nora Pashayan, Timothy R Church, V Paul Doria-Rose, Michael K Gould, Rebecca A Hubbard, Michael Marrone, Diana L Miglioretti, Paul D Pharoah, Paul F Pinsky and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  7. Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Effects of Personalized Risk Information on Patients Referred for Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose CT.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2019
    Article
  15. Colorectal Cancer in the Young: Does Screening Make Sense?Current gastroenterology reports · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pamela M MarcusDivision of Cancer Control and Population Studies, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. marcusp@mail.nih.gov.
Nora PashayanDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom.
Timothy R ChurchDivision of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
V Paul Doria-RoseDivision of Cancer Control and Population Studies, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Michael K GouldDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California.
Rebecca A HubbardDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Michael MarroneDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Diana L MigliorettiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California.
Paul D PharoahDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care and Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.
Paul F PinskyDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Katherine A RendleDivision of Cancer Control and Population Studies, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Hilary A RobbinsDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Megan C RobertsDivision of Cancer Control and Population Studies, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Betsy RollandCarbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
Mark SchiffmanDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Jasmin A TiroDepartment of Clinical Science, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Ann G ZauberDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Deborah M WinnDivision of Cancer Control and Population Studies, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Muin J KhouryDivision of Cancer Control and Population Studies, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University · USKaiser Permanente · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Staff InvestigatorsP30CA093373 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI PRIMO N. LARA · 2002 to 2026
$84.9M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Cancer Research UK 10119Cancer Research UK 10124Cancer Research UK 13065Cancer Research UK 16561Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS P30 CA093373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle, is under consideration for preventive interventions, including cancer screening. On September 29, 2015, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a symposium entitled "Precision Cancer Screening in the General Population: Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps". The goal was two-fold: to share current information on the evidence, practices, and challenges surrounding precision screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, and to allow for in-depth discussion among experts in relevant fields regarding how epidemiology and other population sciences can be used to generate evidence to inform precision screening strategies. Attendees concluded that the strength of evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of precision strategies varies by cancer site, that no one research strategy or methodology would be able or appropriate to address the many knowledge gaps in precision screening, and that issues surrounding implementation must be researched as well. Additional discussion needs to occur to identify the high priority research areas in precision cancer screening for pertinent organs and to gather the necessary evidence to determine whether further implementation of precision cancer screening strategies in the general population would be feasible and beneficial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(11); 1449-55. ©2016 AACR.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMalePrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID27507769
PMCPMC5165650
OpenAlexW2514971305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.