Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38429085›Full record

Trial reportJournal of epidemiology and community health2024

Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England.

Rebecca Smittenaar, Samantha L Quaife, Christian von Wagner, Thomas Higgins, Earl Hubbell, Lennard Lee

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05611632 (A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Clinical Utility of a Multi-cancer Early Detection), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05611632 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Clinical Utility of a Multi-cancer Early Detection (MCED) Test for Population Screening in the United Kingdom (UK) When Added to Standard of Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorGRAIL, Inc.Ran2021 to 2031Enrolled142,318ConditionsCancerArmsMulti-cancer early detection test (Galleri test)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test: clinical update for GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Rebecca SmittenaarGRAIL Bio UK Ltd, a subsidiary of GRAIL, LLC, London, UK csmittenaar@grailbio.com.
Samantha L QuaifeQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Christian von WagnerUniversity College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7971-0691
Thomas HigginsNational Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Leeds, UK.
Earl HubbellGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Lennard LeeNHS England, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer burden is higher and cancer screening participation is lower among individuals living in more socioeconomically deprived areas of England, contributing to worse health outcomes and shorter life expectancy. Owing to higher multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test sensitivity for poor-prognosis cancers and greater cancer burden in groups experiencing greater deprivation, MCED screening programmes may have greater relative benefits in these groups. We modelled potential differential benefits of MCED screening between deprivation groups in England at different levels of screening participation.

methodsWe applied the interception multi-cancer screening model to cancer incidence and survival data made available by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to estimate reductions in late-stage diagnoses and cancer mortality from an MCED screening programme by deprivation group across 24 cancer types. We assessed the impact of varying the proportion of people who participated in annual screening in each deprivation group on these estimates.

resultsThe modelled benefits of an MCED screening programme were substantial: reductions in late-stage diagnoses were 160 and 274 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Reductions in cancer mortality were 60 and 99 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Benefits were greatest in the most deprived group at every participation level and were attenuated with lower screening participation.

conclusionsFor the greatest possible population benefit and to decrease health inequalities, an MCED implementation strategy should focus on enhancing equitable, informed participation, enabling equal participation across all socioeconomic deprivation groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05611632.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAdultAgedEnglandFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedSocial ClassSocioeconomic FactorsEPIDEMIOLOGYHEALTHCARE DISPARITIESNEOPLASMSPUBLIC HEALTHSCREENING

Identifiers

PMID38429085
PMCPMC11103338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.