Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35232405›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2022

Patient-reported outcomes associated with cancer screening: a systematic review.

Ashley Kim, Karen C Chung, Christopher Keir, Donald L Patrick

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06931561 (Occupational Cancer Screening in Firefighters), which is not on this map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06931561 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Occupational Cancer Screening in Firefighters: A Pilot Study Within the Inova Health System

TypeinterventionalSponsorInova Health Care ServicesRan2025 to 2028Enrolled800ConditionsCancerArmsWhole Body MRI, Whole Body Ultrasound, MCD Assay, Occupational Exposure Questionnaire
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Impact of anal precancer screening on patient-reported outcomes among men-who-have-sex-with-men living with HIV: a scoping review.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Gender differences between dyadic coping and emotional distress in young and middle-aged cancer patients and spouses.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Ashley KimGRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., CA, Menlo Park, USA. akim@grailbio.com.
Karen C ChungGRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., CA, Menlo Park, USA.
Christopher KeirGRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., CA, Menlo Park, USA.
Donald L PatrickUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMulti-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.

methodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.

resultsIn total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.

conclusionsThe psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnxietyDepressionEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsObservational Studies as TopicPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStress, PsychologicalCancer screeningClinical trialsPatient-reported outcome measuresPatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID35232405
PMCPMC8886782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.