Evidence mapPaperPMID 41501152Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2026

A guide to cancer screening.

Stephen W Duffy, Judith Offman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. s.w.duffy@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4901-7922
Judith OffmanCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. j.m.offman@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5604-1635

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of cancer screening is to identify pre-malignant conditions, which can be removed or treated, or earlier-stage disease, for which treatment is more likely to be curative, in non-symptomatic individuals. Currently, screening programmes are being consolidated for five cancer types (breast, prostate, cervical, colorectal and lung) and several other cancer types are the focus of specific initiatives. Cancer screening is at a point of potential major transformation owing to technological advances in detection. In this Review, we first recapitulate the general principles of cancer screening. We then provide a timely overview of the current screening practices for breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate and lung cancer, addressing major challenges and potential future changes in practice. We also discuss other malignancies for which screening initiatives might be worth considering. Finally, we highlight technological developments in cancer detection that might hold promise for screening an increasing number of cancers in the future, notably some that reflect unmet needs.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningNeoplasmsFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.