ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024
Benefits and harms of polygenic risk scores in organised cancer screening programmes: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening: insights from risk stratification, guidelines, and emerging technologies-a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Weighing the evidence on costs and benefits of polygenic risk-based approaches in clinical practice: A systematic review of economic evaluations.American journal of human genetics · 2025Pooled it
- Genome wide association analysis and association of genetic risk and lifestyle with upper gastrointestinal cancer among an endoscopy-screened cohort in China.Science bulletin · 2026Article
- Optimizing colorectal cancer screening through polygenic risk score-based risk stratification: evidence from a population-based cohort and screening trial.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Polygenic risk scores: Navigating the future of precision medicine through economic, ethical, and scientific advancements.iScience · 2026Review
- Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extending risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: evidence from China's first province-wide program.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Predictive Biomarkers for Asymptomatic Adults: Opportunities, Risks, and Guidance for General Practice.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Cost-effectiveness of two major population-based breast cancer screening programmes in China: a model-based economic evaluation.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Multi-cancer early detection: from promise to practice and the next frontier.Cancer biology & medicine · 2025Article
- Considering Clinical Implementation of Polygenic Scores in Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment: Recipients' Perspectives on Influencing Factors and Strategies.The patient · 2025Article
- The impact of adherence on colorectal cancer screening cost-effectiveness: A modeling study.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Emerging threat of environmental microplastics: A comprehensive analysis of hepatic metabolic dysregulation and hepatocellular damage (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Standardization, Education, and Resourcing: The Way Forward for Implementing Polygenic Risk Scores in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Deriving risk-adapted starting ages of breast cancer screening according to polygenic risk score.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
- Risk-adjusted breast screening: an Australian perspective and considerations for the Western Pacific.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Addressing the rising colorectal cancer burden in the older adult: examining modifiable risk and protective factors for comprehensive prevention strategies.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of polygenic risk score-stratified screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Disparity in cognitive factors related to cancer screening uptake based on the theory of planned behavior.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Developing an optimal stratification model for colorectal cancer screening and reducing racial disparities in multi-center population-based studies.Genome medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While polygenic risk scores (PRS) could enable the streamlining of organised cancer screening programmes, its current discriminative ability is limited. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to trade-off the benefits and harms of PRS-stratified cancer screening in China. Methods: The validated National Cancer Center (NCC) modelling framework for six cancers (lung, liver, breast, gastric, colorectum, and oesophagus) was used to simulate cancer incidence, progression, stage-specific cancer detection, and risk of death. We estimated the number of cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, number needed to screen (NNS), overdiagnosis, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one-time PRS-stratified screening strategy (screening 25% of PRS-defined high-risk population) for a birth cohort at age 60 in 2025, compared with unstratified screening strategy (screening 25% of general population) and no screening strategy. We applied lifetime horizon, societal perspective, and 3% discount rate. An ICER less than $18,364 per QALY gained is considered cost-effective. Findings: One-time cancer screening for population aged 60 was the most cost-effective strategy compared to screening at other ages. Compared with an unstratified screening strategy, the PRS-stratified screening strategy averted more cancer deaths (61,237 vs. 40,329), had a lower NNS to prevent one death (307 vs. 451), had a slightly higher overdiagnosis (14.1% vs. 13.8%), and associated with an additional 130,045 QALYs at an additional cost of $1942 million, over a lifetime horizon. The ICER for all six cancers combined was $14,930 per QALY gained, with the ICER varying from $7928 in colorectal cancer to $39,068 in liver cancer. ICER estimates were sensitive to changes in risk threshold and cost of PRS tools. Interpretation: PRS-stratified screening strategy modestly improves clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of organised cancer screening programmes. Reducing the costs of polygenic risk stratification is needed before PRS implementation. Funding: The Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Jing-jin-ji Special Projects for Basic Research Cooperation, and the Sanming Project of the Medicine in Shenzhen.
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.