ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026
Modelled impact of a multi-cancer early detection screening programme on the demand for diagnostics in England.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2026. 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.
- Modelled impact of a multi-cancer early detection screening programme on the demand for diagnostics in England.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Emerging Approaches in Breast Cancer: From Molecular Mechanisms to Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategies.Oncology research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with a cancer signal detected via multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening need timely access to confirmatory diagnostic testing. We estimated the likely change in demand for diagnostic testing in England if MCED screening were introduced.
methodsDiagnostic demand was modelled based on (1) estimates of the volume of people aged 50-79 years who would be referred for diagnostic investigation following a 'cancer signal detected' result after MCED screening and (2) MCED test performance metrics. Predicted usage was compared with current annual usage using routine NHS datasets.
resultsIn an established MCED screening programme, assuming 70% of the total eligible population is screened annually (~13 million), the relative change in diagnostic demand was greatest for colonoscopy (+2.09%; +13,730 each year); the greatest absolute change was for computed tomography (CT; +0.76%; +62,320). This equates to +1040 colonoscopies and +4720 CT scans for every million screened.
conclusionsThe predicted relative increase in diagnostic testing generated by MCED screening is small, though a large eligible population and maximum uptake could translate into a large number of procedures. Cancer diagnoses brought forward in time through screening should reduce diagnostic use for symptomatic presentations in the future.
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.