Systematic review reveals improved diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness in risk-based screening for cancer, suggesting better resource allocation.
Introduction: Risk-based screening (RBS) has emerged as a promising alternative to age-based cancer screening. However, evidence regarding real-world implementation outcomes remains fragmented. Thus, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the implementation methodologies and outcomes of RBS programmes across different cancer types. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus were systematically searched from their respective dates of inception up to 8 July 2024. Prospective and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which implement the RBS of cancer in an asymptomatic population, or studies retrospectively evaluating the outcomes of the same were included. Geographic distribution, population characteristics, RBS methodology, diagnostic accuracy and clinical outcomes were narratively synthesised. Results: Among the 33 included studies (i.e. 21 prospective cohort, 8 RCTs, 3 retrospective and 1 non-RCT), sample sizes ranged from 102 to 1,429,890 participants. Most RBS trials were conducted in China (n=7, 21.2%), followed by the Netherlands (n=4, 12.1%) then the US, Australia and Sweden (n=3, 9.8%). Studies predominantly examined colorectal (27.3%), breast (21.2%) and prostate cancer (18.2%). Three main stratification approaches emerged: algorithmic (48.5%), validated risk models (39.4%) and physician assessment (9.1%). Implementation outcomes showed higher uptake in moderate-risk (75.4%) compared to high-risk (71.3%) and low-risk groups (67.9%). Five studies demonstrated cost-effectiveness with increased quality-adjusted life years, while 12 studies showed superior or non-inferior cancer detection rates compared to traditional screening. Conclusion: The RBS of cancer has the potential to optimise healthcare resource allocation while minimising harm and increasing receptiveness for patients. More work is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes prior to the scaling of RBS programmes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: