Author
Listed:
- Christin Henning
(Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria)
- Gaby Sroczynski
(Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria)
- Lára Hallsson
(Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria)
- Beate Jahn
(Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria)
- Uwe Siebert
(Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
ONCOTYROL - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Division of Health Technology Assessment, Innsbruck, Austria
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, Departments of Epidemiology and Health Policy & Management, Boston, MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Institute for Technology Assessment and Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)
- Nikolai Mühlberger
(Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL – University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria)
Abstract
Background It is still a matter of debate whether a reduction in cancer-specific mortality due to cancer screening fully translates into a reduction in all-cause mortality and thus into a gain in life expectancy. Nevertheless, decision-analytic models simulating the health consequences of screening compared with no screening predict substantial gains in life expectancy. Purpose The aim of this review was to systematically assess methodological competing mortality risk features that affect the translation of cancer-specific mortality reductions into gains in life expectancy in decision-analytic screening models for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer. Data Sources Literature databases were systematically searched for clinical and economic decision-analytic models evaluating the effect of screening for prostate, lung, breast, and colorectal cancer compared with no screening. Study Selection Forty-two clinical and economic decision-analytic models were included for narrative synthesis. Data Extraction Basic information and specific methodological features of the included decision-analytic models were extracted using a standardized approach. Data Synthesis Characteristics and methodological features of the identified studies were summarized in evidence tables. Limitations The review focused on models that reported undiscounted outcomes of life-years gained for standard screening strategies. Conclusions This review highlights key modeling features related to competing mortality risks that should be considered in decision-analytic models assessing the effects of cancer screening. All included models predicted gains in life expectancy with screening, although the magnitude of these gains varied both within and across cancer types. Models that considered competing mortality risks tended to predict smaller lifetime gains from screening interventions. Future studies should prioritize the use of advanced modeling approaches that account for competing mortality risks to improve the accuracy of benefit–harm assessments in cancer screening. Highlights This is the first systematic assessment of methodological competing mortality risk features of decision-analytic screening models across 4 cancer types. Models vary greatly regarding predicted gains in life expectancy, natural history assumptions (onset and progression rates), methodological model features, and screening strategies. Models that considered competing mortality risks or adjusted life expectancy for comorbidities predicted smaller lifetime gains for screening compared with no screening.
Suggested Citation
Christin Henning & Gaby Sroczynski & Lára Hallsson & Beate Jahn & Uwe Siebert & Nikolai Mühlberger, 2025.
"Life Expectancy Predicted by Decision-Analytic Models Evaluating Screening for Prostate, Lung, Breast, and Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review Focusing on Competing Mortality Risks,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(8), pages 927-950, November.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:8:p:927-950
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251351613
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:8:p:927-950. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.