Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31024081›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2019

Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma.

Sudhir Srivastava, Eugene J Koay, Alexander D Borowsky, Angelo M De Marzo, Sharmistha Ghosh, Paul D Wagner, Barnett S Kramer

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 178 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
178citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

178 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 324 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

118 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sudhir SrivastavaDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. srivasts@mail.nih.gov.
Eugene J KoayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7675-3461
Alexander D BorowskyDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Angelo M De MarzoDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sharmistha GhoshDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Paul D WagnerDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Barnett S KramerDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
National Institutes of Health · USJohns Hopkins University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

Imaging and Molecular Correlates of Progression in Cystic Neoplasms of the PancreasU01CA196403 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI MAITRA, ANIRBAN · 2015 to 2020
$5.8M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA196403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For cancer screening to be successful, it should primarily detect cancers with lethal potential or their precursors early, leading to therapy that reduces mortality and morbidity. Screening programmes have been successful for colon and cervical cancers, where subsequent surgical removal of precursor lesions has resulted in a reduction in cancer incidence and mortality. However, many types of cancer exhibit a range of heterogeneous behaviours and variable likelihoods of progression and death. Consequently, screening for some cancers may have minimal impact on mortality and may do more harm than good. Since the implementation of screening tests for certain cancers (for example, breast and prostate cancers), a spike in incidence of in situ and early-stage cancers has been observed, but a link to reduction in cancer-specific mortality has not been as clear. It is difficult to determine how many of these mortality reductions are due to screening and how many are due to improved treatments of tumours. In cancers with lower incidence but high mortality (for example, pancreatic cancer), screening has focused on high-risk populations, but challenges similar to those for general population screening remain, particularly with regard to finding lesions with difficult-to-characterize malignant potential (for example, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms). More sensitive screening methods are detecting smaller and smaller lesions, but this has not been accompanied by a comparable reduction in the incidence of invasive cancers. In this Opinion article, we focus on the contribution of screening in general and high-risk populations to overdiagnosis, the effects of overdiagnosis on patients and emerging strategies to reduce overdiagnosis of indolent cancers through an understanding of tumour heterogeneity, the biology of how cancers evolve and progress, the molecular and cellular features of early neoplasia and the dynamics of the interactions of early lesions with their surrounding tissue microenvironment.

Indexed as

Medical OveruseBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningNeoplasmsPancreatic NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsTumor Microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID31024081
PMCPMC8819710
OpenAlexW2940469730

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.