Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37639247›Full record

SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2023

Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Michael Bretthauer, Paulina Wieszczy, Magnus Løberg, Michal F Kaminski, Tarjei Fiskergård Werner, Lise M Helsingen, Yuichi Mori, Øyvind Holme, Hans-Olov Adami, Mette Kalager

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
31.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07741435 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

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

TypeobservationalSponsorCentro de Tratamiento e Investigación sobre Cáncer, Luis Carlos Sarmiento AnguloRan2025 to 2028Enrolled3,250ConditionsNeoplasms, Solid Tumor, Breast Neoplasms, Lung NeoplasmsArmsMethylscape DNA methylation assay
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 138 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. 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
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

Michael BretthauerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Paulina WieszczyClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Magnus LøbergClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Michal F KaminskiClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Tarjei Fiskergård WernerMedical Library, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Lise M HelsingenClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Yuichi MoriClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Øyvind HolmeClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Hans-Olov AdamiClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Mette KalagerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Department for Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NOOslo University Hospital · NOThe Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsProstatic NeoplasmsColonoscopyEarly Detection of CancerHumansMaleMass ScreeningOccult BloodProstate-Specific AntigenRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicProstate-Specific Antigen

Identifiers

PMID37639247
PMCPMC10463170
OpenAlexW4386209732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.