Back

Assessing potential harms from screening overdiagnosis and false positives with multicancer early detection tests

Malagon, T.; Russell, W. A.; Burnier, J. V.; Dickinson, K.; Brenner, D.

2026-04-13 oncology
10.64898/2026.04.09.26348927 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundMulticancer early detection tests could be used for cancer screening, but may lead to harms, including false positive results and overdiagnosis of indolent tumours that would not have become clinically evident during that persons lifetime. We assessed the potential for these screening harms in the context of future population-based screening with a multicancer early detection test. MethodsWe used a microsimulation model to assess potential population-level impacts of screening at ages 50-75 years with a multicancer early detection test in Canada. We assumed high test specificity (97-99.1%) and test sensitivity increasing with cancer stage. The model includes latent indolent cancers that would not be diagnosed within that persons lifetime but can be overdiagnosed through screen-detection. We calculated the yearly and cumulative lifetime probabilities of screening overdiagnosis and false positive test results, assuming a range of preclinical screen-detectable periods (2-5 years). ResultsAn estimated 2.1-6.0% of all yearly screen-detected cancers with a multicancer screening test were predicted to be overdiagnoses across scenarios. The proportion of overdiagnosis varied by site, and strongly increased with age, going from 1% at age 50 to over 10% of screen-detected cancers by age 75. The test positive predictive value ranged from 15.9%-77.6%, meaning that there could be 0.3-5.3 false positives with no underlying cancer for every true cancer case detected by the test. ConclusionPopulation-level multicancer screening with a multicancer early detection test would likely not lead to substantial screen-related overdiagnosis. Healthcare systems should consider how screening false positives may increase their diagnostic service caseload.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
2
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.9%
3
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 27%
6.4%
5
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.4%
8
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.7%
9
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
10
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 29%
3.1%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
12
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
14
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
15
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
16
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
17
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
18
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 72%
0.8%
20
Annals of Epidemiology
19 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
21
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
23
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
24
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
The Lancet Regional Health - Americas
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
26
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
27
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.7%
30
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%