SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2023
Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Synthesis in JAMA internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07741435 (Evaluation of a Rapid Test for the Detection of Methylation Profiles), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 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.
Evaluation of a Rapid Test for the Detection of Methylation Profiles (Methylscape) in Various Body Fluids as a Universal Biomarker for Cancer Detection and Monitoring
Who cites it
53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noncancer-Related Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- The Omission of Anthracycline Chemotherapy in Women with Early HER2-Negative Breast Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Pooled it
- Breast cancer screening and early diagnosis in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 10.72 million women.BMC women's health · 2024Pooled it
- Five year mortality in an RCT of a lung cancer biomarker to select people for low dose CT screening.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Global variability in colorectal cancer screening guidelines: panel composition and recommendations.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- 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) · 2026Article
- It depends on where you stand on screening: health professionals' awareness, perspectives, and approaches to overdiagnosis in cancer screening - a qualitative interview study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- The evolving role of PSA in prostate cancer screening: revisiting the evidence in the era of personalized medicine.Advances in laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Quality-adjusted life years in the presence and absence of organized mammographic screening using data from BreastScreen Norway.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of cancer screening and overall survival benefit.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Changes in PSA-Based Early Detection of Prostate Cancer over a 12-Year Period: Findings from the German KABOT Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Current challenges in screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: an appraisal of the METAPAC study.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Pairwise ratio transformation of gene expression data leads to improved checkpoint response prediction in lung cancer patients.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Toward Artificial Intelligence in Oncology and Cardiology: A Narrative Review of Systems, Challenges, and Opportunities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Process for Rapid Co-development of a Decision Aid Prototype for Population-wide Cancer Screening.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Personalization in Breast Cancer Screening: From Population Models to Individualized Protocols.Cancers · 2025Review
- Is it time for Canada to revisit its approach to prostate cancer screening?Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Review
- A Case of Severe Pulmonary Metastasis in Advanced Endometrial Cancer and the Importance of Clinical Screening.Cureus · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on byBeyond the2024
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Cancer screening tests are promoted to save life by increasing longevity, but it is unknown whether people will live longer with commonly used cancer screening tests. Objective: To estimate lifetime gained with cancer screening. Data Sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized clinical trials with more than 9 years of follow-up reporting all-cause mortality and estimated lifetime gained for 6 commonly used cancer screening tests, comparing screening with no screening. The analysis included the general population. MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases were searched, and the last search was performed October 12, 2022. Study Selection: Mammography screening for breast cancer; colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer; computed tomography screening for lung cancer in smokers and former smokers; or prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Searches and selection criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were independently extracted by a single observer, and pooled analysis of clinical trials was used for analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years gained by screening was calculated as the difference in observed lifetime in the screening vs the no screening groups and computed absolute lifetime gained in days with 95% CIs for each screening test from meta-analyses or single randomized clinical trials. Results: In total, 2 111 958 individuals enrolled in randomized clinical trials comparing screening with no screening using 6 different tests were eligible. Median follow-up was 10 years for computed tomography, prostate-specific antigen testing, and colonoscopy; 13 years for mammography; and 15 years for sigmoidoscopy and FOBT. The only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy (110 days; 95% CI, 0-274 days). There was no significant difference following mammography (0 days: 95% CI, -190 to 237 days), prostate cancer screening (37 days; 95% CI, -37 to 73 days), colonoscopy (37 days; 95% CI, -146 to 146 days), FOBT screening every year or every other year (0 days; 95% CI, -70.7 to 70.7 days), and lung cancer screening (107 days; 95% CI, -286 days to 430 days). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy.
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.