ReviewInternational journal of cancer2026
Challenges in the future of cancer screening.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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) · 2026Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Endobronchial Ultrasound for Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Staging: A Scoping Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Challenges in the future of cancer screening.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.