Back

Estimating (stage-)sojourn time for multiple cancer-sites: literature review and structured elicitation of expert beliefs

Jankovic, D.; Palmer, S.; Callister, M. E. J.; Lyratzopoulos, G.; Dias, S.; Welton, N. J.; Payne, K.; Soares, M. O.

2026-07-09 oncology
10.64898/2026.06.26.26355688 medRxiv
Show abstract

Preclinical cancer sojourn time, defined here as the duration a cancer is undetected but detectable, is important for understanding disease progression and evaluating screening policies. This study aims to robustly characterise empirical evidence and existing knowledge over mean sojourn times across 21 stageable tumour sites, including stage-specific preclinical cancer sojourn times and the sojourn time of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA)-positive cancers. We updated an existing systematic review through to February 2025 to extract population-level empirical sojourn time estimates derived from mathematical models of primary screening data. To synthesise this heterogeneous literature, quantify uncertainty, and obtain estimates for cancer-sites lacking empirical evidence, we conducted a formal Structured Expert Elicitation involving 15 clinical experts. The elicitation was grounded on the systematic review results, supplemented by an evidence dossier that included survival data and outcomes from relevant ctDNA cancer studies. The systematic review revealed heterogeneity in existing literature, which focused on a small subset of screened cancers (e.g., breast, cervical, colorectal). The elicitation successfully generated comprehensive probability distributions of overall mean sojourn times for all 21 cancer-sites (representing the site of tumour origin), as well as stage-specific sojourn times and overall sojourn times for ctDNA-positive cancers across 14 cancer-sites. This study used robust methodology to quantitatively describe existing evidence and experts' beliefs on the sojourn time of multiple cancer-sites, also describing uncertainty. Such estimates are important for future evaluations of the clinical impact, potential for overdiagnosis and subsequent cost-effectiveness of emerging screening technologies, including multi-cancer detection tests.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
British Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
3
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
4
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 16%
6.8%
5
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
6
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.3%
7
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.1%
8
BMC Cancer
67 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.8%
9
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
10
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
11
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
12
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.4%
13
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
14
European Journal of Cancer
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
15
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.3%
17
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
18
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
21
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.8%
22
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
23
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
24
Genetics in Medicine
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
Gut
40 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%