Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39592444›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2024

Quantifying Overdiagnosis for Multicancer Detection Tests: A Novel Method.

Stuart G Baker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Stuart G BakerDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6759-2838

Funding

Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use blood specimens to detect preclinical cancers. A major concern is overdiagnosis, the detection of preclinical cancer on screening that would not have developed into symptomatic cancer in the absence of screening. Because overdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary and harmful treatments, its quantification is important. A key metric is the screen overdiagnosis fraction (SOF), the probability of overdiagnosis at screen detection. Estimating SOF is notoriously difficult because overdiagnosis is not observed. This estimation is more challenging with MCD tests because short-term results are needed as the technology is rapidly changing. To estimate average SOF for a program of yearly MCD tests, I introduce a novel method that requires at least two yearly MCD tests given to persons having a wide range of ages and applies only to cancers for which there is no conventional screening. The method assumes an exponential distribution for the sojourn time in an operational screen-detectable preclinical cancer (OPC) state, defined as once screen-detectable (positive screen and work-up), always screen-detectable. Because this assumption appears in only one term in the SOF formula, the results are robust to violations of the assumption. An SOF plot graphs average SOF versus mean sojourn time. With lung cancer screening data and synthetic data, SOF plots distinguished small from moderate levels of SOF. With its unique set of assumptions, the SOF plot would complement other modeling approaches for estimating SOF once sufficient short-term observational data on MCD tests become available.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsOverdiagnosisComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMass ScreeningModels, Statisticalcancer screeninglead timemulticancer early detection testoverdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID39592444
PMCPMC11639630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.