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.
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 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Quantitative Framework to Study Potential Benefits and Harms of Multi-cancer Early Detection Testing 97%
- A new colorectal cancer risk prediction model incorporating family history, personal and environmental factors 93%
- Site-specific cancer incidence by race and immigration status in Canada 2006-2015: a population-based data linkage study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Predicted long-term impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related care delays on cancer incidence and mortality in Canada 96%
- Effects of Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Development, Documentation and Validation of a Multistate Markov Model 94%
- Inequalities in relative cancer survival by race, immigration status, income, and education for 22 cancer sites in Canada, a cohort study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- CA125 and age-based models for ovarian cancer detection in primary care: a population-based external validation study 93%
- The impact of COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening in England on excess diagnoses 93%
- Immortal time bias in older vs younger age groups: a simulation study with application to a population-based cohort of patients with colon cancer 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of Screening and Follow-up Colonoscopy Adenoma Sensitivity on Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the CRC-AIM Microsimulation Model 92%
- A Video Intervention to Improve Patient Understanding of Tumor Genomic Testing in Patients with Cancer 91%
- Associations of the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) Cancer Prevention Recommendations with Stages of Colorectal Carcinogenesis 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of COVID-19 on population cancer screening programs in Australia: modelled evaluations for breast, bowel and cervical cancer 95%
- Unequal Recovery in Colorectal Cancer Screening Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Microsimulation Analysis 95%
- Health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen: A model-based analysis for current and future disruptions 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.