ArticleBMC health services research2024
Estimating the incremental population health impact of a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test to complement existing screening among elevated risk populations with multiple cancer risk factors: a mathematical modeling study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe added benefits of a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test among individuals with multiple risk factors will help policy decision-makers allocate limited healthcare resources. This study sought to estimate the population health implications of adding an MCED test to standard-of-care (SOC) cancer screening tests among individuals aged 50-79 years with additional cancer risk factors (i.e., tobacco use, family history of cancer, and/or obesity).
methodsA mathematical model was developed to assess the potential screening efficiency of an MCED test in addition to current guideline-recommended screenings. Among the US population of 107 million adults aged 50-79 years, the size of, and cancer risk among specific subgroups (i.e., smokers, obese individuals, those with a family history of cancer) as well as the general population were estimated from the literature. Published estimates of screening uptake and/or performance were used to model the number of cancers detected by SOC screening alone, and the number of incremental cancers that could be detected by an MCED test. Screening efficiency outcomes included the true-positive:false-positive (TP:FP) ratio, diagnostic yield (DY), and cancer detection rate (CDR). Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying the values of key parameters.
resultsAmong all subgroups, the TP:FP ratios were higher with an MCED test than with SOC screening alone, and higher than in the general population, suggesting improved screening efficiency with an MCED test. The estimated TP:FP ratios were 1:43.3 (SOC)/1:1.1 (MCED), 1:40.4/1:0.8, 1:36.9/1:0.5 among former, ever, and current smokers, respectively, 1:38.3/1:0.9 (those with a family history of cancer), and 1:39.3/1:1.1 (obese individuals). Among the general population, the TP:FP ratios were 1:43.5/1:1.1. Across all subpopulations, the DY and CDR increased by up to threefold with an MCED test, when compared to SOC screening alone, with up to 75% of cancers detected with an MCED test lacking a screening paradigm. These results were robust in sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsAdding an MCED test could improve screening efficiency among individuals with multiple risk factors, as well as the general population.
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.