ArticleCancer medicine2024
Improved Effectiveness of Combined Screening for Multiple Cancers: A Government-Organized Population-Based Study in China.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Pan-cancer analysis and breast cancer validation reveal DEAD-box helicase 23 as a crucial prognostic and immuno-biomarker.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- DKK3 and SERPINB5 as novel serum biomarkers for gastric cancer: facilitating the development of risk prediction models for gastric cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China (CanSPUC) in Hebei Province, 2016-2023.
methodsA questionnaire for risk factors of lung, breast, upper gastrointestinal, liver, and colorectal cancers was administered to urban residents aged 40-74 years in five cities to assess their cancer risk. High-risk participants were invited for screening and classified into five groups on the basis of the number of cancer types that were assessed to be high risk. The participation and positive outcome rates were analyzed. The incidence and the mortality of five types of cancer and all-cause mortality of the screened and nonscreened participants were calculated via inverse probability weighting.
resultsA total of 237,975 eligible participants were enrolled in our study and 118,339 participants (49.94%) were assessed to be at high risk for one or more of the five cancer types. The number of screenings performed was 103,824, with a screening participation rate of 40.49%. Among the 57,315 screening participants, 9077 (15.84%) had positive cancer diagnoses and 871 (1.52%) were diagnosed with suspected cancer. Compared with the participants at high risk for a single cancer type, the participation and positive outcome rate increased by 45% and 71.5% in the participants at high risk for multiple cancer types. Compared with the non-screened participants, the screened participants had a 27.0% decrease in mortality due to the five types of cancer and a 45.8% decrease in all-cause mortality.
conclusionA combined screening program for multiple cancers could increase participation and positive outcome rates. It could also decrease the five types of cancer mortality and all-cause mortality. Our findings highlight the effectiveness of combined screening for multiple cancers with limited health care resources, and may provide foundational evidence for the feasibility of conducting combined screening programs.
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.