Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38304718›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024

Benefits and harms of polygenic risk scores in organised cancer screening programmes: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Changfa Xia, Yongjie Xu, He Li, Siyi He, Wanqing Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

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

5 authors.

Changfa XiaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yongjie XuOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
He LiOffice of National Cancer Regional Medical Centre in Liaoning Province, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Siyi HeOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wanqing ChenOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cancer screeningChinaCost-effectivenessPolygenic risk score

Identifiers

PMID38304718
PMCPMC10832505

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.