Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37550686›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

The aggregate value of cancer screenings in the United States: full potential value and value considering adherence.

Tomas J Philipson, Troy Durie, Ze Cong, A Mark Fendrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Disparities in Survival of Head and Neck Cancer in the Hispanic Population: Systematic-Review and Meta-analysis.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ethical Considerations and Implications of Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening: Reliability, Access and Cost to Test and Treat.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Evaluating follow-up rates in cancer screening interventions among emergency department patients.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Tomas J PhilipsonUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Troy DurieUniversity of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ze CongGRAIL, LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina, Inc., currently held separate from Illumina Inc., under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October 2021, Menlo Park, CA, USA. zcong@grailbio.com.
A Mark FendrickUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough cancer mortality has been decreasing since 1991, many cancers are still not detected until later stages with poorer outcomes. Screening for early-stage cancer can save lives because treatments are generally more effective at earlier than later stages of disease. Evidence of the aggregate benefits of guideline-recommended single-site cancer screenings has been limited. This article assesses the benefits in terms of life-years gained and associated value from major cancer screening technologies in the United States.

methodsA mathematical model was built to estimate the aggregate benefits of screenings for breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer over time since the start of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. For each type, the full potential benefits under perfect adherence and the benefits considering reported adherence rates were estimated. The effectiveness of each screening technology was abstracted from published literature on the life-years gained per screened individual. The number of individuals eligible for screening per year was estimated using US Census data matched to the USPSTF recommendations, which changed over time. Adherence rates to screening protocols were based on the National Health Interview Survey results with extrapolation.

resultsSince initial USPSTF recommendations, up to 417 million people were eligible for cancer screening. Assuming perfect adherence to screening recommendations, the life-years gained from screenings are estimated to be 15.5-21.3 million (2.2-4.9, 1.4-3.6, 11.4-12.3, and 0.5 million for breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer, respectively). At reported adherence rates, combined screening has saved 12.2-16.2 million life-years since the introduction of USPSTF recommendations, ~ 75% of potential with perfect adherence. These benefits translate into a value of $8.2-$11.3 trillion at full potential and $6.5-$8.6 trillion considering current adherence. Therefore, single-site screening could have saved an additional 3.2-5.1 million life-years, equating to $1.7-$2.7 trillion, with perfect adherence.

conclusionsAlthough gaps persist between the full potential benefit and benefits considering adherence, existing cancer screening technologies have offered significant value to the US population. Technologies and policy interventions that can improve adherence and/or expand the number of cancer types tested will provide significantly more value and save significantly more patient lives.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningModels, TheoreticalUnited StatesCancer screeningLife-years gainedMulti-cancer early detectionValue of cancer screening

Identifiers

PMID37550686
PMCPMC10405449

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.