Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41400247›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of cancer2026

Challenges in the future of cancer screening.

Elsebeth Lynge, Berit Andersen, Stig E Bojesen, Lone Kjeld Petersen, Mickael Bech, Martin Bøgsted, Mie Seest Dam, Søren Egstrand, Anne Mette Fløe Hvass, Camilla J Kobylecki and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. European Cancer Prevention Organization on cancer screening: an expert panel position paper.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Challenges in the future of cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2026
    Review
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

16 authors.

Elsebeth LyngeDepartment of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4785-5236
Berit AndersenUniversity Research Clinic for Cancer Screening (UNICCA), Department of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4074-6504
Stig E BojesenDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4061-4133
Lone Kjeld PetersenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1424-6170
Mickael BechDepartment of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3084-2068
Martin BøgstedCenter for Clinical Data Science (CLINDA), Aalborg University and Aalborg University Hospital, Gistrup, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9192-1814
Mie Seest DamCenter for Medical Science and Technology Studies (MeST), Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3028-7255
Søren EgstrandDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7159-2857
Anne Mette Fløe HvassUniversity Research Clinic for Cancer Screening (UNICCA), Department of Public Health Programmes, Randers Regional Hospital, Randers, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2874-9852
Camilla J KobyleckiDepartment of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9562-2897
Kristina LångDivision of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9250-1897
Mads NielsenDepartment of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1535-068X
Giorgi Paolo RossiAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9703-2460
Michael StengerDepartment of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3605-1785
Ilse VejborgDepartment of Breast Examinations, University Hospital Herlev Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2329-203X
Future of Cancer Screening Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of cancer screening is to reduce mortality, and ideally incidence, from the cancer screened for. Until recently, cancer screening has been offered to all persons in pre-defined sex- and age-groups. The exception is lung screening which is targeted to high-risk individuals. Evidence for effect of screening on cancer-specific mortality is available for cancer of the cervix, breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate, and on cancer-specific incidence for cervix and colorectal cancer. With more effective molecular and computational tools, the current paradigm of cancer screening will change. Manual reading of images and pathology in mammography, cytology, colposcopy, colonoscopy, and CT scan will be complemented or replaced by AI-interpretation. Risk stratification will diversify screening intensity, for instance in breast screening where modelling and randomized controlled trials are underway. Blood-based screening tests might allow for simultaneous early detection of several types of cancer. Furthermore, prediction models based on life trajectories in health and other data will enhance risk stratification, potentially dividing the population into groups with no need of screening, with need of simple or advanced screening, with need of surveillance or even diagnostics. In public health care systems, these developments must be closely monitored. Before replacing an existing program, evidence for non-inferiority in reducing cancer-specific mortality should be ensured. Benefits must outweigh harms, and citizens should have confidence in new screening schemes. With the pressure on health care resources, screening should continue in organized and monitored programs. Taking these conditions into account, the new screening tools will potentially enable improved cancer control.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningNeoplasmsFemaleHumansMalecancerevidencescreening

Identifiers

PMID41400247
PMCPMC12922640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.