MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408621175 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2025.1546447

Assessing the clinical, humanistic, and economic impact of early cancer diagnosis: a systematic literature review

2025· review· en· W4408621175 on OpenAlexaffabout
Raquel Aguiar‐Ibáñez, Yves Paul Vincent Mbous, E. Chawla

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerChecklistMEDLINEObservational studySystematic reviewBreast cancerHealth careStage (stratigraphy)Family medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: There is a clear consensus among healthcare providers on the advantages of early cancer detection and treatment. However, no in-depth review has yet fully presented the clinical, humanistic, and economic benefits of early cancer diagnosis compared to late detection across a broad range of tumor types. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to determine the clinical, humanistic, and economic benefits of early cancer diagnosis, as opposed to late diagnosis, as reported in non-interventional studies conducted worldwide. Searches were conducted using electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase), conference repositories and grey literature. Observational studies in adults diagnosed with bladder cancer, gastric cancer, head and neck cancer (HNC), melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal-cell carcinoma (RCC), and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) were eligible for inclusion if they reported survival, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthcare resource utilization and/or costs, according to stage at diagnosis. Identified records were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Larg and Moss adapted checklist. Results: Of the 3,159 records identified, 103 studies were included in this review. The general trend showed worse clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes when patients were diagnosed at a later stage compared to an earlier stage. Patients diagnosed at an earlier stage, had on average, substantially higher survival rates and lower mortality rates across all cancer types and incurred lower resource utilization and costs (with available evidence for patients with NSCLC, TNBC, and HNC), compared to those diagnosed at a more advanced/later stage. Limited evidence on the humanistic burden suggested that with a more advanced stage at diagnosis, patients with bladder cancer experienced reduced HRQoL. Conclusion: Early cancer diagnosis (i.e., cancer diagnosed at earlier stages or with lower grades) was associated with longer survival, improved quality of life and lower healthcare costs and resource utilization compared to diagnosis of cancer at later stages or higher grades, as reported by overall survival (OS) and HRQoL outcomes. These findings emphasize the importance of screening and early detection of cancer to improve outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.426 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicBladder and Urothelial Cancer TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207