ArticleBMC health services research2023
The aggregate value of cancer screenings in the United States: full potential value and value considering adherence.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Sociocultural factors influencing women's adherence to colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers to cancer screening uptake and approaches to overcome them: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Racial and/or Ethnic Differences in Adherence to Preventive Care Guidelines among US Adults Using a Nationally Representative Survey of All Eight Major Racial and/or Ethnic Populations.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Harnessing viral footprints in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) for early cancer detection: A focus on liquid-biopsy-based screening.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Assessment of Gaps and Inequalities in Cancer Screening at the District Level in Peru.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Real-world data and clinical experience from over 100,000 multi-cancer early detection tests.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Predicting quality measure completion among 14 million low-income patients enrolled in medicaid.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of an AI-enabled exome/transcriptome liquid biopsy platform for early detection, MRD, disease monitoring, and therapy selection for solid tumors.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Article
- Cancer screening and its associated factors in hypertensive individuals: new insights from the 2021 STEPs national study in Iran.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Deep learning-based identification of patients at increased risk of cancer using routine laboratory markers.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Experiences With Cancer Screenings Among Arabic-Speaking Refugee Women.Nursing for women's health · 2025Article
- Multicancer Detection (MCD) Testing in Gastrointestinal Cancers: An Evolving Tool for Early Diagnosis.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- The risk and benefit profiles of US-eligible lung cancer screening attendees vs nonattendees.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- A Low-Cost, Portable, Multi-Cancer Screening Device Based on a Ratio Fluorometry and Signal Correlation Technique.Biosensors · 2024Article
- Evaluating follow-up rates in cancer screening interventions among emergency department patients.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024Article
- Social Risk Factor Domains and Preventive Care Services in US Adults.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Review
- Frameshift mutations in peripheral blood as a biomarker for surveillance of Lynch syndrome.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.