Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40694037›Full record

SynthesisCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2025

Late-Stage Outcomes as Surrogates for Mortality in Cancer Screening Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Matejka Rebolj, Adam R Brentnall, Julia Geppert, Nefeli Kouppa, Bethany Shinkins, Karoline Freeman, Chris Stinton, Matthew J Randell, Samantha Johnson, Robert A Smith and 5 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

15 authors.

Matejka Rebolj *Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Detection, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9597-645X
Adam R Brentnall *Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6327-4357
Julia Geppert *Warwick Screening, Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6446-6094
Nefeli Kouppa *Centre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Detection, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0004-8827-3085
Bethany ShinkinsWarwick Screening, Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5350-1018
Karoline FreemanWarwick Screening, Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9963-2918
Chris StintonWarwick Screening, Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0003-2419-7688
Matthew J RandellWarwick Screening, Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5856-3007
Samantha JohnsonUniversity of Warwick Library, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4716-1229
Robert A SmithAmerican Cancer Society Center for Early Cancer Detection Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.ORCID 0000-0003-3344-2238
Peter SasieniCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Detection, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1509-8744
Sam M JanesDivision of Medicine, Lungs for Living Research Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6634-5939
Ruth EtzioniDivision of Public Health Sciences, Biostatistics Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0002-9164-6370
Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Detection, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4901-7922
Sian Taylor-PhillipsWarwick Screening, Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1841-4346

Funding

The Early Detection Research Network: Data Management and Coordinating CenterU24CA086368 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI RUTH D ETZIONI, Ziding Feng · 2010 to 2026
$75.7M
Modeling and analytics for cancer diagnostics: traversing the data-evidence divideR35CA274442 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER · PI RUTH D ETZIONI · 2022 to 2026
$4.9M
NCI NIH HHS R35 CA274442NCI NIH HHS U24 CA086368
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Late-stage cancer incidence has been proposed as a surrogate outcome for cancer-specific mortality in future screening trials. Two previous meta-analyses with 33 and 39 trials assessed trial-level surrogacy but provided inconsistent conclusions about the suitability of late-stage cancer endpoints replacing mortality. Our systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID, CRD42023369320) investigated the association between the effect of cancer screening on the incidence of late-stage cancer and cancer-specific mortality. From 57 trials with 61 trial arm comparisons, correlation between late-stage incidence and mortality outcomes was 0.69 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47-0.84] for all cancers combined. Specifically, correlations were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.27-0.93) for bowel (N = 11 trials), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.49-0.94) for breast (N = 13), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for lung cancer (N = 14). Trial point estimates of the screening effect on mortality were within each trial's 95% CI late-stage incidence estimates in 56 of 61 (92%) trial arm comparisons and in 16 of 19 (84%) trial arm comparisons in which the entire 95% CI for screening effect on late-stage incidence was below one. Evidence suggests potential for late-stage cancer incidence as a key outcome in screening trials, but further research is needed to clarify when to measure late-stage outcomes, extrapolation for cancer types without trials, and the conditions when late-stage cancer does not accurately predict mortality.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsHumansIncidenceNeoplasm Staging

Identifiers

PMID40694037
PMCPMC12491949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.