Estimated proportion of cancer deaths not addressed by current cancer screening efforts in the United States

BackgroundIt is unclear what proportion of the population cancer burden is covered by current implementation of USPSTF A/B screening recommendations.ObjectiveWe estimated the proportion of all US cancer deaths caused by cancer types not covered by screening recommendations or cancer types covered but unaddressed by current implementation.MethodsWe used 2018-2019 National Center for Health Statistics mortality data, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries incidence-based mortality data, and published estimates of screening eligibility and receipt.ResultsOf approximately 600,000 annual cancer deaths in the US, 31.4% were from screenable cancer types, including colorectal, female breast, cervical, and smoking-associated lung cancers. Further accounting for the low receipt of lung cancer screening reduced the proportion to 17.4%; accounting for receipt of other screening reduced it to 12.8%. Thus, we estimated that current implementation of recommended screening may not address as much as 87.2% of cancer deaths<i>-</i>including 30.4% from individually uncommon cancer types unlikely ever to be covered by dedicated screening.ConclusionsThe large proportion of cancer deaths unaddressed by current screening represents a major opportunity for improved implementation of current approaches, as well as new multi-cancer screening technologies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cancer Biomarkers
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/18758592241308754
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.05
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Estimated proportion of cancer deaths not addressed by current cancer screening efforts in the United States

Christina A. Clarke, Ahmedin Jemal, Alpa V. Patel, William L. Dahut et al.
1 citations
Cancer Biomarkers
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
1.05
article

Estimated proportion of cancer deaths not addressed by current cancer screening efforts in the United States

Christina A. Clarke, Ahmedin Jemal, Alpa V. Patel, William L. Dahut, Graham A. Colditz, Joshua J. Ofman, Earl Hubbell, Allison W. Kurian, Ellen T. Chang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

BackgroundIt is unclear what proportion of the population cancer burden is covered by current implementation of USPSTF A/B screening recommendations.ObjectiveWe estimated the proportion of all US cancer deaths caused by cancer types not covered by screening recommendations or cancer types covered but unaddressed by current implementation.MethodsWe used 2018-2019 National Center for Health Statistics mortality data, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries incidence-based mortality data, and published estimates of screening eligibility and receipt.ResultsOf approximately 600,000 annual cancer deaths in the US, 31.4% were from screenable cancer types, including colorectal, female breast, cervical, and smoking-associated lung cancers. Further accounting for the low receipt of lung cancer screening reduced the proportion to 17.4%; accounting for receipt of other screening reduced it to 12.8%. Thus, we estimated that current implementation of recommended screening may not address as much as 87.2% of cancer deaths<i>-</i>including 30.4% from individually uncommon cancer types unlikely ever to be covered by dedicated screening.ConclusionsThe large proportion of cancer deaths unaddressed by current screening represents a major opportunity for improved implementation of current approaches, as well as new multi-cancer screening technologies.

Cancer BiomarkersVol. 42(1)
American Cancer Society (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Menlo School (US), Stanford Medicine (US), Grail (United States) (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
1.05
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.