Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34990529›Full record

SynthesisEpidemiology and health2022

Quantifying the duration of the preclinical detectable phase in cancer screening: a systematic review.

Sandra M E Geurts, Anne M W M Aarts, André L M Verbeek, Tony H H Chen, Mireille J M Broeders, Stephen W Duffy

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Epidemiology and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sandra M E GeurtsDepartment of Medical Oncology, GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anne M W M AartsRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
André L M VerbeekRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tony H H ChenInstitute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Mireille J M BroedersRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Stephen W DuffyWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLMaastricht University · NLNational Taiwan University · TWQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to provide an overview of published mathematical estimation approaches to quantify the duration of the preclinical detectable phase (PCDP) using data from cancer screening programs.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed and Embase was conducted for original studies presenting mathematical approaches using screening data. The studies were categorized by mathematical approach, data source, and assumptions made. Furthermore, estimates of the duration of the PCDP of breast and colorectal cancer were reported per study population.

resultsFrom 689 publications, 34 estimation methods were included. Five distinct types of mathematical estimation approaches were identified: prevalence-to-incidence ratio (n=8), maximum likelihood estimation (n=16), expectation-maximization algorithm (n=1), regression of observed on expected (n=6) and Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo estimation (n=5). Fourteen studies used data from both screened and unscreened populations, whereas 19 studies included only information from a screened population. Estimates of the duration of the PCDP varied between 2 years and 7 years for breast cancer in the Health Insurance Plan study (annual mammography and clinical breast examinations in women aged 40-64 years) and 2 years and 5 years for colorectal cancer in the Calvados study (a guaiac fecal occult blood test in men and women aged 45-74 years).

conclusionsDifferent types of mathematical approaches lead to different estimates of the PCDP duration. We advise researchers to use the method that matches the data available, and to use multiple methods for estimation when possible, since no method is perfect.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsBayes TheoremEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMammographyMass ScreeningSensitivity and SpecificityBreast neoplasmsColorectal neoplasmsEarly detection of cancerPreclinical detectable phaseSojourn timeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34990529
PMCPMC9117108
OpenAlexW4205423031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.