Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40753481›Full record

ReviewMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2025

Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models.

Olena Mandrik, Sophie Whyte, Natalia Kunst, Annabel Rayner, Melissa Harden, Sofia Dias, Katherine Payne, Stephen Palmer, Marta O Soares

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Olena MandrikSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3755-3031
Sophie WhyteSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Natalia KunstCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2409-4246
Annabel RaynerSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Sofia DiasCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2172-0221
Katherine PayneManchester Centre for Health Economics, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, UK.
Stephen PalmerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Marta O SoaresCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1579-8513

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IntroductionThe potential for multicancer early detection (MCED) tests to detect cancer at earlier stages is currently being evaluated in screening clinical trials. Once trial evidence becomes available, modeling will be necessary to predict the effects on final outcomes (benefits and harms), account for heterogeneity in determining clinical and cost-effectiveness, and explore alternative screening program specifications. The natural history of disease (NHD) component will use statistical, mathematical, or calibration methods. This work aims to identify, review, and critically appraise the existing literature for alternative modeling approaches proposed for MCED that include an NHD component.MethodsModeling approaches for MCED screening that include an NHD component were identified from the literature, reviewed, and critically appraised. Purposively selected (non-MCED) cancer-screening models were also reviewed. The appraisal focused on the scope, data sources, evaluation approaches, and the structure and parameterization of the models.ResultsFive different MCED models incorporating an NHD component were identified and reviewed, alongside 4 additional (non-MCED) models. The critical appraisal highlighted several features of this literature. In the absence of trial evidence, MCED effects are based on predictions derived from test accuracy. These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions with unknown impacts, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality impacts from predicted stage shifts. None of the MCED models fully characterized uncertainty in the NHD or examined uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.ConclusionThere is currently no modeling approach for MCEDs that can integrate clinical study evidence. In support of policy, it is important that efforts are made to develop models that make the best use of data from the large and costly clinical studies being designed and implemented across the globe.HighlightsIn the absence of trial evidence, published estimates of the effects of multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are based on predictions derived from test accuracy.These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality effects from predicted stage shifts. The effects of such simplifying assumptions are mostly unknown.None of the existing MCED models fully characterize uncertainty in the natural history of disease; none examine uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption.Currently, there is no modeling approach that can integrate clinical study evidence.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumanscalibrationmodelsMulticancer early detectionnatural history of disease

Identifiers

PMID40753481
PMCPMC12511643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.