ArticleBiometrics2024
Designing cancer screening trials for reduction in late-stage cancer incidence.
Article in Biometrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Are we properly evaluating genetic and genomic testing? A systematic review of health technology assessment reports.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Bias in Meta-Analytic Modeling of Surrogate Endpoints in Cancer Screening Trials.Statistics in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Before implementing a biomarker test for early cancer detection into routine clinical care, the test must demonstrate clinical utility, that is, the test results should lead to clinical actions that positively affect patient-relevant outcomes. Unlike therapeutical trials for patients diagnosed with cancer, designing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to demonstrate the clinical utility of an early detection biomarker with mortality and related endpoints poses unique challenges. The hurdles stem from the prolonged natural progression of the disease and the lack of information regarding the time-varying screening effect on the target asymptomatic population. To facilitate the study design of screening trials, we propose using a generic multistate disease history model and derive model-based effect sizes. The model links key performance metrics of the test, such as sensitivity, to primary endpoints like the incidence of late-stage cancer. It also incorporates the practical implementation of the biomarker-testing program in real-world scenarios. Based on the chronological time scale aligned with RCT, our method allows the assessment of study powers based on key features of the new program, including the test sensitivity, the length of follow-up, and the number and frequency of repeated tests. The calculation tool from the proposed method will enable practitioners to perform realistic and quick evaluations when strategizing screening trials for specific diseases. We use numerical examples based on the National Lung Screening Trial to demonstrate the method.
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.