ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs2025
Design considerations and challenges in the CHinA National CancEr Screening (CHANCES) trial and Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST).
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 2025. 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.
- Advanced Versus Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in a Screening Population: Implications for Risk-based Prevention and Screening Strategies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- The analysis of cancer screening trials in which the outcome is the incidence of late-stage disease.European journal of epidemiology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper explores the design considerations and hurdles encountered by the CHinA National CancEr Screening (CHANCES) Trial and the Tomosynthesis Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (TMIST), both aimed at advancing cancer screening research. Before population-based cancer screening programs are launched, it is important to have confidence that the potential benefits of the screening process and resulting interventions outweigh harms, an ethical imperative because the people actively invited into the programs are relatively healthy. Large randomized screening trials provide the strongest, direct evidence regarding the balance of benefits and harms. The implementation of cancer screening programs involves a series of steps, with outcomes influenced by factors such as the prevalence of the disease, availability of effective treatment within the health-care system, and acceptance by the target population-all of which may vary considerably from country to country. This paper examines how these factors shaped the design and statistical approach of the CHANCES Trial for lung and colorectal cancers and the TMIST trial for breast cancer. We discuss the rationale, objectives, endpoint definitions, trial designs, and sample size considerations, highlighting both the challenges and opportunities presented in different settings. Ultimately, the goal is to foster collaboration and develop screening strategies that are scientifically robust and practically effective for diverse populations worldwide.
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.