Hubbry Logo
OverdiagnosisOverdiagnosisMain
Open search
Overdiagnosis
Community hub
Overdiagnosis
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Overdiagnosis
Overdiagnosis
Overdiagnosis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of disease that will never cause symptoms or death during a patient's ordinarily expected lifetime[1] and thus presents no practical threat regardless of being pathologic. Overdiagnosis is a side effect of screening for early forms of disease. Although screening saves lives in some cases, in others it may turn people into patients unnecessarily and may lead to treatments that do no good and perhaps do harm. Given the tremendous variability that is normal in biology, it is inherent that the more one screens, the more incidental findings will generally be found. For a large percentage of them, the most appropriate medical response is to recognize them as something that does not require intervention; but determining which action a particular finding warrants ("ignoring", watchful waiting, or intervention) can be very difficult, whether because the differential diagnosis is uncertain or because the risk ratio is uncertain (risks posed by intervention, namely, adverse events, versus risks posed by not intervening).

Overdiagnosis occurs when a disease is diagnosed correctly, but the diagnosis is irrelevant. A correct diagnosis may be irrelevant because treatment for the disease is not available, not needed, or not wanted. Some people contend that the term "overdiagnosis" is inappropriate, and that "overtreatment" is more representative of the phenomenon.

Because most people who are diagnosed are also treated, it is difficult to assess whether overdiagnosis has occurred in an individual. Overdiagnosis in an individual cannot be determined during life.[citation needed] Overdiagnosis is only certain when an individual remains untreated, never develops symptoms of the disease and dies of something else. The distinction of "died with disease" versus "died of disease" is then important and relevant. Thus most of the inferences about overdiagnosis comes from the study of populations. Rapidly rising rates of testing and disease diagnosis in the setting of stable rates of the feared outcome of the disease (e.g. death) are highly suggestive of overdiagnosis. Most compelling, however, is evidence from a randomized trial of a screening test intended to detect pre-clinical disease. A persistent excess of detected disease in the tested group years after the trial is completed constitutes the best evidence that overdiagnosis has occurred.[citation needed]

Although overdiagnosis is potentially applicable to the diagnosis of any disease, the concept was first recognized and studied in cancer screening—the systematic evaluation of asymptomatic patients to detect early forms of cancer.[2] The central harm of cancer screening is overdiagnosis—the detection of abnormalities that meet the pathologic definition of cancer (under the microscope) but will never progress to cause symptoms or death during a patient's ordinarily expected lifetime.

In advanced age, such as 65 years or older, the concept of overdiagnosis takes on increasing importance as life expectancy decreases. There are various cancer types for which a standard contraindication to screening is life expectancy of less than 10 years, for the simple and logical reason that a person who already has medically complex health status (e.g., multiple comorbidities) and realistically can probably expect to live for less than 10 years is less likely to get a net benefit (balance of benefit versus harms) from diagnosing and treating that cancer, especially if it may be indolent anyway. Prostate cancer is a classic example, but the concept can apply to breast cancer and other types as well.

Overdiagnosis and the variability of cancer progression

[edit]

Cancer screening is the effort to detect cancer early, during its pre-clinical phase—the time period that begins with an abnormal cell and ends when the patient notices symptoms from the cancer. It has long been known that some people have cancers with short pre-clinical phases (fast-growing, aggressive cancers), while others have cancers with long pre-clinical phases (slow-growing cancers). And this heterogeneity has an unfortunate implication: namely, screening tends to disproportionately detect slow-growing cancers (because they are accessible to be detected for a long period of time) and disproportionately miss the fast-growing cancers (because they are only accessible to be detected for a short period of time)—the very cancers we would most like to catch. For more information, see Screening (medicine)#Length time bias.

This long-standing model has a hidden assumption: namely, that all cancers inevitably progress. But some pre-clinical cancers will not progress to cause problems for patients. And if screening (or testing for some other reason) detects these cancers, overdiagnosis has occurred.

The figure below depicts the heterogeneity of cancer progression using 4 arrows to represent 4 categories of cancer progression.

Cancer screening is most useful in detecting slowly progressing cancers but can cause overdiagnosis if very slow or non-progressive cancers are detected.

The arrow labeled "Fast" represents a fast-growing cancer, one that quickly leads to symptoms and to death. These are the worst forms of cancer and unfortunately often appear in the interval between screening tests. The arrow labeled "Slow" represents a slow-growing cancer, one that leads to symptoms and death but only after many years. These are the cancers for which screening has arguably the greatest beneficial impact.

The arrow labeled "Very Slow" represents a cancer that never causes problems because it is growing very slowly. If a cancer grows slowly enough, then patients will die of some other cause before the cancer gets big enough to produce symptoms.

The arrow labeled "Non-progressive" represents a cancer that never causes problems because it is not growing at all. In other words, there are cellular abnormalities that meet the pathologic definition of cancer but never grow to cause symptoms—alternatively, they may grow and then regress. Although the concept of non-progressive cancers may seem implausible, basic scientists have begun to uncover biologic mechanisms that halt the progression of cancer.[3][4][5] Some cancers outgrow their blood supply (and are starved), others are recognized by the host's immune system (and are successfully contained), and some are not that aggressive in the first place.

Cancer that grows too slowly to be likely to harm the patient is usually referred to as a benign tumor. Although some types of benign tumor may require intervention, they are often simply monitored for malignant transformation.[6][7]

Evidence for overdiagnosis in cancer

[edit]

The phenomenon of overdiagnosis is most widely understood in prostate cancer.[8] A dramatic increase in the number of new cases of prostate cancer was observed following the introduction of the PSA (prostate specific antigen) screening test. Because of the problem of overdiagnosis, most organizations recommend against prostate cancer screening in men with limited life expectancy—generally defined as less than 10 years (see also prostate cancer screening).

Overdiagnosis has been identified in mammographic screening for breast cancer.[9][10] Long-term follow-up of the Malmo randomized trial of mammography found a persistent excess of 115 breast cancers in the screened group 15 years after the trial was completed (a 10% rate of overdiagnosis).[11] In a letter to the editor, authors not associated with the original study of the data from the randomized clinical trial argued that one-quarter of mammographically detected breast cancers represent overdiagnosis.[12] A systematic review of mammography screening programs reported an overdiagnosis rate of around 50%, which is the same of saying that a third of diagnosed cases of breast cancer are overdiagnosed.[13]

Overdiagnosis has also been identified in chest x-ray screening for lung cancer.[14] Long-term follow-up of the Mayo Clinic randomized trial of screening with chest x-rays and sputum cytology found a persistent excess of 46 lung cancer cases in the screened group 13 years after the trial was completed,[15] suggesting that 20–40% of lung cancers detected by conventional x-ray screening represent overdiagnosis. There is considerable evidence that the problem of overdiagnosis is much greater for lung cancer screening using spiral CT scans.[16]

Overdiagnosis has also been associated with early detection in a variety of other cancers, including neuroblastoma,[17][18] melanoma,[19] and thyroid cancer.[20] In fact, some degree of overdiagnosis in cancer early detection is probably the rule, not the exception.[citation needed]

Evidence for overdiagnosis of infectious diseases

[edit]

Issues with overdiagnosis of infectious diseases, such as malaria or typhoid fever, persist in many regions around the world. For example, malaria overdiagnosis is well-documented in African countries.[21][22] and results in over-inflation of actual malaria rates reported at the local and national levels.[23] Health facilities tend to over-diagnose malaria in patients presenting with symptoms such as fever, due to traditional perceptions (for example any fever being equivalent to malaria) and issues related to laboratory testing (see Diagnosis of malaria).[24][25] Therefore, malaria overdiagnosis leads to under-management of other fever-inducing conditions,[22] but also to over-prescription of antimalarial drugs.[26]

Harms of overdiagnosis

[edit]

Overdiagnosed patients cannot benefit from the detection and treatment of their "cancer" because the cancer was never destined to cause symptoms or death. They can only be harmed. There are three categories of harm associated with overdiagnosis:

  1. Physical effects of unnecessary diagnosis and treatment: All medical interventions have side effects. This is particularly true of cancer treatments. Surgery, radiation and chemotherapy all pose varying morbidity and mortality risks.
  2. Psychological effects: there is a burden for an individual simply being labeled as "diseased" (e.g. the burden of being labeled a "cancer patient") and an associated increased sense of vulnerability.
  3. Economic burden: Not only the associated cost of treatment (from which the patient cannot benefit, because the disease posed no threat), but also—at least, in the current health care system in the United States—a potential increase in the cost of health insurance or even an inability to procure it (e.g. the diagnosis creates a pre-existing condition that affects health insurance). Similar issues may arise with life insurance. Unlike health insurance, life insurance does not fall under the scope of the Affordable Care Act, thus insurers have even more leeway in denying or reducing coverage or inflating premiums due to the patient's condition.

While many identify false positive results as the major downside to cancer screening, there are data to suggest that—when patients are informed about overdiagnosis—they are much more concerned about overdiagnosis than false positive results.[27]

Distinction among overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and false positive results

[edit]

Overdiagnosis is often confused with the term "false positive" test results and with misdiagnosis, but they are three distinct concepts.[28] A false positive test result refers to a test that suggests the presence of disease, but is ultimately proved to be in error (usually by a second, more precise test). Patients with false positive test results may be told that they have a disease and erroneously treated; overdiagnosed patients are told they have disease and generally receive treatment. Misdiagnosed patients do not have the condition at all, or have a totally different condition, but are treated anyway.

Overdiagnosis is also distinct from overtesting. Overtesting is the phenomenon where patients receive a medical test that they don't need; it will not benefit them.[29] For instance, a patient that receives a lumbar spine x-ray when they have low back pain without any sinister signs or symptoms (weight loss, fever, lower limb paresthesia, etc.) and symptoms have been present for less than 4 weeks. Most tests are subject to overtesting, but echocardiograms (ultrasounds of the heart) have been shown to be particularly prone to overtesting.[29] The detection of overtesting is difficult; recently, many population-level estimates have emerged to try to detect potential overtesting. The most common of these estimates is geographical variation in test use. These estimates detect regions, hospitals or general practices that order many more tests, compared to their peers, irrespective of differences in patient demographics between regions.[30][31] Further methods that have been used include identifying general practices that order a higher proportion of tests that return a normal result,[30] and the identification of tests with large temporal increases in their use, without a justifiable reason.[32]


Overdiagnosis False Positive Results Misdiagnosis
Definition Detection of a "disease" that will never cause symptoms or death during a patient's lifetime A "false alarm"—an initial test result that suggests the presence of disease, but later proved false (no disease is present) Diagnosis of a disease that the patient does not in fact have (either they are "normal" or they have a different condition)
Patient experience Told they have the disease Told that the test was wrong and they do not have the disease (usually after being first told they have the disease or at least may have it) Told they have the disease
Physician action Generally, initiates treatment Reassurance Generally, initiates treatment
Potential Harms
  • Physical effects: Side effects and mortality risk from treatments that cannot help the patient (because they did not need help)
  • Psychological effects: labeled as "diseased" and increased sense of vulnerability
  • Economic burden: Treatment costs
  • Physical effects: Discomfort and complications from invasive diagnostic tests
  • Psychological effects: Short-term anxiety associated with near miss (e.g. "cancer scare")
  • Economic burden: Cost of diagnostic testing
  • Physical effects: Side effects and mortality risk from treatments that cannot help the patient (because they did not need those treatments). If symptoms or abnormal lab findings are instead caused by a different condition, misdiagnosis can result in failure to provide treatment for the patient's actual condition, causing preventable suffering or even death.
  • Psychological effects: labeled as "diseased" and increased sense of vulnerability, or, in case of a different condition, failure to alleviate symptoms, resulting in frustration and lack of trust for medical professionals
  • Economic burden: Treatment costs for unnecessary treatment, and in cases of a different condition, failure to treat the correct condition may result in more expensive complications and more missed work days, or even permanent disability.

Solutions to overdiagnosis

[edit]

The concept of undiagnosing is a strategy to review diagnostic labels and remove those that are unnecessary or no longer beneficial. It is important that the medical record is updated to reflect the removal of the diagnosis.[33]

Removing cancer from names of low-risk diagnoses

[edit]

It has been proposed that some conditions that are indolent (i.e., unlikely to cause appreciable harm during the patient's lifetime) should have the words "cancer" or "carcinoma" removed from their accepted/preferred medical name.[34] Such a proposal is to name conditions as indolent lesions of epithelial origin or IDLE.[34]

Medical complexity

[edit]

If a person is medically complex (multiple comorbidities) and may expect to live for less than ten years, then there may be a net harm (benefit less harm) in diagnosing and treating one or more of their morbidities, eg prostate cancer. The principal, however, can apply to all cancers and other illnesses.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Overdiagnosis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Overdiagnosis is the detection and of medical conditions, such as indolent cancers or non-progressive abnormalities, that would not progress to cause symptoms, morbidity, or mortality during an individual's lifetime if left undetected. This phenomenon arises primarily from population-based screening programs using advanced imaging or biomarkers, which identify pseudo-diseases or slow-growing lesions that pose no clinical threat, thereby converting healthy individuals into patients unnecessarily. In , overdiagnosis manifests prominently; for instance, detects breast cancers that remain indolent and asymptomatic, while testing identifies prostate tumors that would never metastasize or shorten life. Similarly, and screenings have documented substantial overdiagnosis rates, with estimates suggesting up to 50% or more of detected cases in some programs may represent non-lethal entities. These detections trigger cascades of biopsies, surgeries, , and chemotherapies that confer risks without benefits, including surgical complications, treatment toxicities, and financial burdens. The harms extend beyond physical interventions to psychological distress from labeling, anxiety over a "cancer" , and behavioral changes like unnecessary restrictions, often outweighing screening's mortality reductions in certain demographics. Controversies persist regarding quantification—randomized trials struggle to precisely measure overdiagnosis due to lead-time and length biases—and the ethical tension between averting rare aggressive cases and iatrogenic harm from mass interventions, prompting calls for risk-stratified screening and diagnostic restraint. Despite from studies and trial data affirming its prevalence, overdiagnosis remains underemphasized in clinical guidelines, partly due to entrenched screening paradigms prioritizing detection volume over causal harm-benefit calculus.

Definition and Historical Context

Core Definition and Conceptual Foundations

Overdiagnosis refers to the detection and labeling of a medical condition that would not have caused symptoms, morbidity, or mortality in an individual's lifetime if it had remained undetected. This occurs when diagnostic processes, often through screening populations, identify abnormalities—such as indolent lesions or non-progressive states—that fall within expanded disease definitions but pose no genuine clinical threat. The term encapsulates the transformation of harmless or self-limiting states into medical diagnoses, thereby initiating cascades of monitoring or intervention without altering health outcomes. Conceptually, overdiagnosis arises from the recognition that s exhibit heterogeneous natural histories, with subsets of cases destined for spontaneous regression, prolonged dormancy, or irrelevance to lifespan. It presupposes a normative threshold for what constitutes "disease," which diagnostic advancements continually shift by detecting subclinical or borderline entities previously overlooked. Unlike misdiagnosis, which involves incorrect attribution of , overdiagnosis pertains to true but inconsequential findings; it is also distinct from overtreatment, where appropriate detection prompts unwarranted aggressive management due to or incentives. This distinction underscores that overdiagnosis's primary harm lies in unnecessary patienthood—fostering anxiety, stigma, and resource diversion—rather than direct physiological damage from the condition itself. Foundational analyses, such as those by H. Gilbert Welch, frame overdiagnosis as a byproduct of intensified , where technological sensitivity amplifies the detection of "pseudo-diseases" that inflate prevalence estimates without proportional mortality reductions. Welch argues that from screening trials reveals lead-time and length biases, wherein earlier detection captures slower-growing cases that would evade symptomatic presentation, thus quantifying overdiagnosis as the excess diagnoses unaccompanied by corresponding life-years saved. These concepts challenge assumptions of unqualified benefit from early detection, emphasizing causal realism: not all diagnosed entities are on a pathogenic trajectory warranting intervention.

Emergence of the Concept and Key Historical Milestones

The term "overdiagnosis" entered medical discourse in the early , with initial uses dating to at least , primarily denoting the erroneous classification of benign or non-pathological states as , akin to a form of misdiagnosis. By the mid-, as diagnostic technologies advanced and population-based screening programs proliferated—such as cervical cytology in the 1940s and in the —the concept evolved to describe the identification of conditions unlikely to progress or cause harm during a patient's lifetime. This shift reflected growing awareness that expanded detection could inflate prevalence without corresponding reductions in morbidity or mortality, particularly evident in studies revealing tumors present in 10-30% of individuals dying from unrelated causes. A pivotal early critique emerged in 1972 with Archie Cochrane's Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services, which questioned the unproven benefits of routine screening and emphasized potential harms from unnecessary interventions, laying groundwork for later overdiagnosis analyses despite not using the term explicitly. The 1980s marked further milestones with the introduction of (PSA) testing in 1986, which precipitated a 100-200% surge in incidence by the early 1990s without proportional mortality declines, prompting estimates of 23-42% overdiagnosis attributable to screening. Similarly, randomized trials like the Canadian National Breast Screening Study (initiated 1980) revealed excess diagnoses in screened cohorts, quantifying overdiagnosis at up to 50% in for women aged 40-49. The 2000s solidified the concept's prominence through quantitative modeling and trial reanalyses; for example, a 2002 analysis of U.S. prostate cancer trends formalized overdiagnosis estimates using excess incidence beyond expected lethal cases. This era also saw broader application beyond cancer, with recognition in conditions like chronic kidney disease staging via glomerular filtration rate thresholds introduced in 2002 guidelines, where lower thresholds captured millions in preclinical states. By 2011, H. Gilbert Welch's Overdiagnosed synthesized these developments, arguing that intensified screening and imaging had pathologized normal variations, influencing policy shifts such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2012 recommendation against routine PSA screening due to overdiagnosis risks outweighing benefits.

Mechanisms Driving Overdiagnosis

Variability in Disease Natural History

The natural history of many , particularly neoplastic conditions, exhibits substantial heterogeneity, characterized by a spectrum of progression rates from indolent or non-progressive lesions to rapidly aggressive forms that cause symptoms or death. This variability stems from intrinsic biological factors, including genetic , epigenetic modifications, and interactions with the host microenvironment, leading some abnormalities to remain subclinical throughout an individual's lifespan or even regress spontaneously without intervention. For example, in cancers, indolent subtypes may constitute 15–75% of all detected cases, varying by organ site, as slower-growing tumors accumulate silently over decades while aggressive ones manifest earlier. Such heterogeneity drives overdiagnosis in screening contexts, where sensitive detection tools disproportionately identify slow-growing or dormant lesions that would never progress to , thereby expanding the diagnosed disease pool without reducing mortality. Screening shifts the for detection, enriching prevalent cases with indolent biology—often missed in symptomatic presentations—while interval cancers between screens tend to represent faster-progressing variants. studies quantify this : subclinical prostate cancers appear in 20–50% of men aged 50–80, thyroid microcarcinomas in up to 36% of women over 60, and in 6–15% of breasts from routine autopsies, illustrating how natural variability creates a hidden burden unmasked by proactive testing. This biological diversity complicates prognostic accuracy, as morphological or early molecular features alone poorly distinguish indolent from lethal trajectories, often prompting uniform treatment of heterogeneous entities. Population-level reinforce the mechanism: randomized screening trials show incidence surges (e.g., 50–100% in prostate-specific antigen-era ) unaccompanied by proportional mortality drops, attributable to indolent overdiagnosis rather than true prevention.

Influence of Advanced Detection Technologies

Advanced detection technologies, including high-resolution imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT), (MRI), , and digital mammography, as well as biomarker assays like (PSA), have substantially increased the sensitivity for identifying subclinical lesions that may never progress to . These tools detect abnormalities at earlier stages or in individuals, often through screening programs, leading to the of indolent diseases—termed pseudodisease—that would not have caused morbidity or mortality within a patient's lifetime. The enhanced resolution and widespread adoption of these technologies amplify overdiagnosis by uncovering prevalent but non-harmful conditions, as evidenced by studies revealing incidental cancers in up to 30-50% of individuals without prior symptoms. In , PSA testing exemplifies this influence, with widespread screening resulting in overdiagnosis rates estimated at 20-50% of detected cases, primarily indolent tumors unlikely to metastasize or shorten . Population-based data indicate that approximately 75% of at-risk men have undergone PSA testing, contributing to a surge in low-risk diagnoses without corresponding mortality reductions, as stable death rates persist despite incidence doubling in screened cohorts. Frequent PSA screening further exacerbates this, with men tested more often receiving diagnoses of non-aggressive cancers that active might otherwise avoid. Breast cancer screening via has similarly driven overdiagnosis, particularly of (DCIS), which comprises 15-25% of diagnoses and often represents non-invasive lesions with low progression risk. Studies estimate that 12-31% of screen-detected breast cancers, including DCIS, are overdiagnosed, with randomized trials reporting rates up to 22% for invasive cases alone, as excess incidence persists without mortality benefits after accounting for lead-time and length biases. Digital mammography's higher detection rates, while improving specificity in some contexts, have not reduced interval cancers and may inflate recalls, indirectly fueling unnecessary biopsies. Thyroid ultrasound screening provides another stark illustration, with incidental detection of small nodules leading to papillary microcarcinomas that rarely cause harm, accounting for 60-90% of incidence surges in screened populations. In , diagnoses increased 15-fold from 1993 to 2011 due to ultrasound-driven programs, yet mortality remained unchanged, indicating overdiagnosis of indolent lesions via heightened imaging sensitivity. Comparable patterns emerge globally, where for non-thyroid indications often uncovers nodules prompting biopsies and surgeries without gains. like AI-enhanced imaging risk compounding these issues by further boosting detection volumes unless calibrated to prioritize clinically relevant lesions.

Empirical Evidence in Cancer

Landmark Studies and Quantitative Estimates

One landmark study on overdiagnosis emerged from the European Randomized Study of Screening for (ERSPC), a multicenter initiated in the 1990s, which found that of men with positive biopsies following PSA screening, an estimated 20–50% represented overdiagnosis, with a specific figure of 50.4% in long-term follow-up analyses accounting for indolent tumors unlikely to progress. This estimate derived from comparing cumulative incidence in screened versus control arms, highlighting how PSA-detected cancers often exhibited low-grade pathology that would not have caused symptoms or within lifetimes. In , the Independent Panel on Breast Cancer Screening's 2012 report, based on re-analysis of randomized trial data from the –, quantified overdiagnosis at around 19% for women invited to screening over 20 years, though subsequent modeling studies have varied widely, with randomized trials showing 1–10% and observational data up to 54%. A 2023 of randomized trials across cancers, including breast, re-analyzed excess incidence post-screening and concluded overdiagnosis risks were significant but often underestimated due to incomplete follow-up and failure to adjust for competing mortality risks. Thyroid cancer provides a stark example through South Korea's nationwide screening program starting in the late 1990s, which correlated with a 15-fold incidence rise (from 3.6 to over 60 per 100,000 annually by 2010) among women, while age-adjusted mortality remained stable at around 0.7 per 100,000, implying overdiagnosis of the vast majority of detected papillary microcarcinomas that exhibit negligible progression. Global estimates from a 2024 population-based study across 63 countries pegged thyroid overdiagnosis at 24.92% of cases, driven by detection of subclinical lesions. Quantitative estimates of overdiagnosis fractions differ by cancer type and methodology—such as excess incidence modeling versus prevalence comparisons—with often at 20–50% in screening contexts, breast at 10–30% (lower in recent U.S.-focused analyses ruling out rates above 25%), and exceeding 70% in high-screening regions due to indolent subtypes. These figures underscore estimation challenges, including lead-time artifacts and varying disease aggressiveness, but consistently indicate substantial overdiagnosis burdens from population-level screening, potentially affecting hundreds of thousands annually worldwide.

Case Studies in Specific Cancers

In , has been associated with substantial overdiagnosis, particularly of indolent subtypes that would not progress to cause symptoms or death. A 2016 New England Journal of Medicine analysis of Norwegian screening data found that overdiagnosis exceeded the benefit of earlier detection for larger tumors, with women more likely to experience overdiagnosis than timely detection of aggressive cancers. A of randomized trials reported an overdiagnosis proportion of 19% during the screening period after 6–15 years of follow-up. More recent U.S. modeling from biennial screening ages 50–74 estimated 15.4% of detected cancers as overdiagnosed, including 6.1% from slow-growing tumors and 9.3% from undetected preclinical cases. Estimates vary by methodology, with individual-level data yielding lower figures (e.g., 2.3% in some Danish studies) compared to aggregated data suggesting up to 48%. Prostate cancer screening via (PSA) testing exemplifies overdiagnosis of low-risk, indolent lesions, driven by detection of tumors unlikely to metastasize or cause mortality within a man's lifetime. A 2022 analysis of three decades of U.S. screening data indicated a persistent harm-to-benefit imbalance, with overdiagnosis rates implying more cancers detected than lives saved, particularly among low-risk cases. Population trends post-PSA introduction show overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease, with autopsy studies revealing a reservoir of latent tumors in up to 30–50% of older men, amplified by widespread testing where 75% of at-risk men have undergone PSA evaluation. European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) data support overdiagnosis rates of 20–50%, depending on age and follow-up, with reductions in screening intensity linked to fewer indolent detections but potential misses of aggressive cases. Experts argue that current "test-by-request" policies exacerbate inequities and overdiagnosis without clear mortality benefits outweighing overtreatment harms. Thyroid cancer incidence has surged globally due to ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration detecting subclinical papillary microcarcinomas, with overdiagnosis accounting for the majority of increases. In the U.S., diagnoses spiked threefold from 1975 to 2019, largely from indolent tumors <1 cm, where mortality remained stable despite rising detections. South Korean reforms in 2014 curbed overdiagnosis by limiting screening, reducing incidence by 30–40% without mortality rises, supporting estimates that 60–90% of cases in screened populations are overdiagnosed. A 2024 population-based study across 63 countries estimated 1.7 million overdiagnoses from 2013–2017, predominantly papillary subtypes with excellent prognoses (98–99% survival) yet leading to unnecessary thyroidectomies. In China, regional mapping showed age-standardized rates up to 16.8 per 100,000 women, with overdiagnosis varying by screening intensity and indolent disease prevalence. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in high-risk smokers demonstrates overdiagnosis, though estimates decline with extended follow-up as indolent cases manifest or resolve. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), involving 53,454 participants, initially suggested 18% overdiagnosis among LDCT-detected cancers after median 4.5-year follow-up, equating to 1.38 excess cases per death prevented. Extended NLST follow-up reduced this to 3%, reflecting slower progression of some screen-detected nodules, but a meta-analysis of low-bias trials estimated 49% overdiagnosis in screen-detected cases. Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial data corroborated 20–25% overdiagnosis, emphasizing risks in balancing mortality reductions (20% in NLST) against detecting non-progressive adenocarcinomas. Recent reviews note overdiagnosis diminishes over time but persists for subsolid nodules, informing guidelines to limit screening to ages 50–80 with ≥20 pack-years smoking history.

Evidence in Non-Cancer Conditions

Infectious Diseases and Acute Conditions

In infectious diseases, overdiagnosis typically involves identifying and treating self-limiting or subclinical infections that would resolve without intervention or cause no significant harm, often exacerbated by diagnostic tests with low specificity or clinical pressures favoring action over watchful waiting. This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in primary care, where uncertainty in interpreting symptoms and biomarkers leads to labeling viral etiologies as bacterial, resulting in overtreatment with antibiotics. For example, in acute lower respiratory tract infections, reliance on non-specific signs like fever and cough contributes to overdiagnosis, with many cases being benign viral processes misattributed to bacteria despite evidence that antibiotics provide no benefit in such scenarios. A specific instance occurs in community-acquired pneumonia among children, where up to a substantial proportion of diagnoses represent overdiagnosis of viral lower respiratory infections as bacterial pneumonia, driven by radiographic findings that overlap with viral patterns and prompting unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions that foster antimicrobial resistance without improving outcomes. Similarly, sore throats presenting in general practice are frequently overdiagnosed as group A streptococcal infections warranting antibiotics, even though the majority are viral and self-resolve within days, with rapid antigen tests showing limited positive predictive value in low-prevalence settings. Among elderly patients, urinary tract infections exemplify overdiagnosis through the routine treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria—colonization without symptoms or tissue invasion—which occurs in 10-20% of community-dwelling older adults and up to 50% in long-term care residents, yet guidelines from bodies like the Infectious Diseases Society of America recommend against screening or treating except in specific cases like pregnancy or urologic procedures to avoid harms like . In viral infections broadly, such as influenza or common colds, misdiagnosis as bacterial sinusitis or bronchitis leads to antibiotic overuse, with U.S. data from 2010-2018 indicating millions of excess prescriptions annually for conditions where antivirals or supportive care suffice. For acute conditions intersecting with infectious processes, overdiagnosis can arise in scenarios like transient acute kidney injury secondary to mild sepsis or dehydration, where biomarker elevations (e.g., creatinine spikes) prompt aggressive interventions despite resolution without sequelae; estimates place overdiagnosis rates at around 54% in such cases, based on longitudinal tracking showing many do not progress to chronic damage. Theoretical models further illustrate how overdiagnosis in infectious disease testing—such as false positives from low viral loads in PCR assays—amplifies demand on resources, paradoxically contributing to undertesting of true cases during outbreaks like . These patterns underscore the interplay between individual diagnosis and public health, where overdiagnosis not only incurs direct costs but erodes trust in diagnostics through iatrogenic harms.

Mental Health and Chronic Behavioral Diagnoses

Overdiagnosis in mental health and chronic behavioral diagnoses arises primarily from the expansion of diagnostic criteria in classification systems such as the , which lowers thresholds for labeling mild, transient, or normative variations in behavior and emotion as pathological disorders requiring intervention. This process has resulted in exponential increases in prevalence rates that exceed plausible rises in underlying disease burden, often driven by diagnostic substitution, heightened awareness campaigns, and incentives from pharmaceutical interests rather than empirical evidence of harm. For instance, a systematic review identified over 75% of discussions on psychiatric overdiagnosis as involving mislabeling of non-disordered states, with criteria changes enabling the pathologization of everyday distress or developmental quirks. In attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a chronic behavioral condition, substantial evidence supports overdiagnosis, particularly among children and adolescents. A 2021 systematic scoping review of 334 studies concluded that ADHD is overdiagnosed and overtreated, with many cases failing to meet core impairment criteria or involving symptoms that resolve spontaneously without intervention; overdiagnosis rates were estimated as high as 20-50% in community samples based on stringent re-evaluations. U.S. prevalence among school-aged children climbed from 6.1% in 1997 to 10.2% by 2016, coinciding with DSM revisions that broadened inattentive subtypes and reduced emphasis on functional impairment, yet twin studies indicate heritability remains stable at 60-70% without proportional genetic shifts. Another synthesis confirmed potential overtreatment, noting that up to one-third of stimulant prescriptions target subthreshold symptoms, exacerbating risks without net benefit for mild presentations. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), another chronic behavioral diagnosis, exemplifies overdiagnosis through criterion broadening that subsumes milder traits under a unified spectrum. The DSM-5's 2013 merger of Asperger's syndrome into ASD eliminated separate subcategories, allowing diagnoses based on social eccentricities alone without mandatory cognitive or language deficits, which Allen Frances—chair of the DSM-IV task force—later attributed to an unintended "epidemic" of overdiagnosis by pathologizing harmless quirks. ASD prevalence in the U.S. escalated from 1 in 150 children in 2000 to 1 in 36 by 2020, largely explained by definitional changes and improved ascertainment rather than environmental surges, as re-analyses of historical data retroactively inflate past rates when applying modern criteria. Studies highlight overdiagnosis in cases of developmental delays or atypical behaviors that do not fulfill DSM-5 requirements upon rigorous scrutiny, with up to 13% of community diagnoses deemed invalid in validation cohorts. For major depressive disorder, DSM-5 alterations facilitated overdiagnosis by removing the bereavement exclusion, equating normal grief with clinical depression and capturing transient sadness in up to 25% more cases. Allen Frances criticized this as "diagnostic hyperinflation," arguing it medicalizes normality and inflates prevalence from 5-10% to potentially double without evidence of increased severe morbidity; epidemiological false positives rose post-DSM-5 due to symptom checklists overriding contextual judgment. A meta-analysis of DSM revisions documented consistent "diagnostic inflation," with depression thresholds shifting to include sub-clinical distress, correlating with a 50%+ rise in adult diagnoses from 2000 to 2015 amid stable suicide rates. These patterns underscore how subjective, checklist-driven assessments in psychiatry amplify overdiagnosis compared to objective biomarkers in physical medicine.

Harms Attributable to Overdiagnosis

Individual Patient Consequences

Overdiagnosis exposes individuals to harms primarily through overtreatment and the psychological burden of labeling, as patients undergo interventions for conditions that would not have progressed to cause symptoms or mortality during their lifetime. These consequences arise because detection prompts diagnostic procedures, surveillance, and therapies that carry risks without corresponding benefits, including invasive biopsies, surgeries, radiation, or medications. Physical harms stem directly from unnecessary treatments for indolent lesions, such as low-grade prostate cancers identified via prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening, where overdiagnosis rates may reach 20-50% in screened populations. Radical prostatectomy or radiation for these cases can result in urinary incontinence affecting up to 10-20% of patients long-term and erectile dysfunction in 30-80%, depending on age and technique, despite no impact on survival. Similarly, in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast, often overdiagnosed through mammography, standard treatments like lumpectomy followed by radiation or tamoxifen expose women to surgical scarring, lymphedema, and hormonal side effects, with 21% discontinuing tamoxifen due to complications such as hot flashes, thrombosis, or endometrial cancer risk. Psychological impacts include heightened anxiety and distress from the cancer label, even for non-progressive diagnoses; women with DCIS report stress levels comparable to those with invasive breast cancer, with many experiencing persistent fear of recurrence despite excellent prognoses. Labeling effects can also alter self-perception and behavior, fostering unnecessary vigilance or avoidance of activities, though quantification remains challenging as patients typically remain unaware of the overdiagnosis. Financial burdens encompass direct costs of treatments and follow-up, such as thousands of dollars for prostate biopsies and monitoring in the U.S., alongside indirect losses from time off work and reduced quality of life, particularly burdensome for low-risk patients who derive no longevity gain. In multimorbid individuals, these harms compound vulnerability, amplifying physical decline and emotional strain without averting disease progression elsewhere.

Societal and Economic Ramifications

Overdiagnosis imposes substantial economic burdens on healthcare systems by necessitating follow-up tests, treatments, and monitoring for conditions that would not have caused harm. In the United States, unnecessary treatments stemming from overdiagnosis and related overuse are estimated to waste more than $200 billion annually. For breast cancer screening via mammography, false-positive results alone contribute approximately $4 billion in yearly costs due to ensuing biopsies, surgeries, and therapies as of 2015 data. In melanoma, overdiagnosis of in situ cases in the US incurs about $42.4 million per year, while stage 1-2 overdiagnoses add $45.2 to $72 million annually. Globally, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) attributes 17.5% of total healthcare expenditure to misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and overdiagnosis combined, underscoring the fiscal scale when overdiagnosis drives overtreatment. These costs extend beyond direct medical expenses to include lost productivity and opportunity costs, as resources allocated to indolent conditions divert funding from patients with progressive diseases requiring intervention. In low-resource settings, overuse of tests like hepatitis B screening has led to economic losses, such as $20,000 over three years in one facility from unnecessary procedures. Projections for US cancer care, exacerbated by overdiagnosis, anticipate expenditures exceeding $246 billion by 2030, with overtreatment amplifying the strain on public and private payers. Societally, overdiagnosis fosters medicalization of benign or self-limiting states, transforming healthy individuals into patients and altering life trajectories through unwarranted interventions. This labeling effect induces psychological distress, including heightened anxiety and behavioral changes, as individuals grapple with diagnoses of non-progressive conditions. By expanding diagnostic nets via screening, overdiagnosis undermines trust in medical systems when harms from overtreatment—such as surgical complications or chemotherapy side effects—emerge without mortality benefits, potentially eroding participation in beneficial screenings. It also perpetuates a cycle of overuse, where social media amplification of test promotion further entrenches low-value practices, diverting societal focus and resources from addressing unmet needs in underserved populations.

Conceptual Distinctions

Overdiagnosis Compared to Misdiagnosis and False Positives

Overdiagnosis refers to the detection of abnormalities or conditions that, if left undetected, would not progress to cause symptoms, morbidity, or mortality during an individual's lifetime. This phenomenon typically arises in asymptomatic screening contexts, where indolent lesions—such as slow-growing prostate or thyroid cancers—are identified but represent pseudodisease rather than clinically significant pathology. In contrast, misdiagnosis involves an erroneous labeling of a patient's condition, either by attributing symptoms to the wrong disease (e.g., mistaking benign chest pain for cardiac ischemia) or failing to recognize the true pathology altogether. Unlike overdiagnosis, which accurately identifies a real but harmless entity, misdiagnosis stems from interpretive errors in clinical assessment, laboratory results, or imaging, potentially leading to inappropriate treatments or missed opportunities for intervention. False positives, a specific type of diagnostic error, occur when a test indicates the presence of disease in an individual who does not have it, often prompting unnecessary follow-up procedures like biopsies. This differs fundamentally from overdiagnosis, as false positives resolve upon confirmatory testing to reveal no underlying disease, whereas overdiagnosis confirms a genuine abnormality that simply lacks clinical relevance. For instance, in mammography screening, a false positive might detect a suspicious mass that proves benign on biopsy, while overdiagnosis identifies a low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ that would regress spontaneously without intervention. These distinctions highlight that overdiagnosis is not an error in detection accuracy but a consequence of expanded diagnostic sensitivity applied to heterogeneous disease spectra, where not all "positives" equate to actionable harm. Misdiagnosis and false positives, by comparison, reflect flaws in specificity or diagnostic criteria application, often amplifying patient anxiety and resource use without the ethical quandary of treating non-progressive conditions. Quantitatively, false positives in breast cancer screening affect up to 50% of women over a decade of annual mammograms, distinct from overdiagnosis estimates of 20-50% of detected cancers in screened populations.

Differentiation from Lead-Time Bias and Length Bias

Overdiagnosis refers to the detection of biological abnormalities—such as indolent tumors or pseudodiseases—that would neither progress nor cause harm during an individual's lifetime, even without intervention. This phenomenon results in unnecessary labeling and treatment, distinct from scenarios where the detected condition would eventually manifest clinically. In contrast, lead-time bias occurs when screening advances the diagnosis of a progressive disease that would have become symptomatic, thereby inflating survival metrics (e.g., time from diagnosis to death) without altering the disease's natural course or total lifespan. For instance, a patient with a fatal cancer diagnosed five years earlier via screening appears to survive longer post-diagnosis, but their overall survival remains unchanged. Length bias, also termed length-time bias, arises from screening's disproportionate detection of slower-growing conditions with extended preclinical (sojourn) phases, as these are more likely to be present and identifiable during screening intervals compared to rapidly progressing ones. This compositional shift favors less aggressive cases in screened populations, yielding apparently superior outcomes unrelated to screening's therapeutic effect. Unlike , which involves non-progressive entities masquerading as threats, length bias presupposes that detected cases are genuine diseases destined for clinical relevance, albeit detected preferentially among indolent subtypes. Empirical analyses, such as those modeling breast cancer screening, quantify length bias through sojourn time distributions, showing it amplifies perceived benefits but does not equate to diagnosing harmless conditions. The key differentiation lies in causality and outcome: lead-time and length biases distort observational metrics of efficacy (e.g., survival rates) for truly harmful diseases by manipulating detection timing or case selection, without implying excess diagnoses of non-diseases. Overdiagnosis, however, introduces an absolute excess of irrelevant detections, often viewed as an extreme manifestation of length bias where sojourn times approach infinity (i.e., perpetual dormancy), but it demands separate estimation via methods like excess incidence trends or randomized trial comparisons of cumulative mortality. For example, in prostate cancer screening trials, overdiagnosis rates of 20-50% reflect pseudodisease detection beyond length-biased indolence, as evidenced by autopsy studies revealing prevalent but non-lethal lesions. Failing to distinguish these risks overestimating screening benefits, as biases alone might suggest modest gains, while overdiagnosis erodes net value through treatment harms.

Controversies and Empirical Debates

Difficulties in Measurement and Attribution

Quantifying overdiagnosis presents significant challenges because it cannot be prospectively or retrospectively confirmed in individual patients, as this requires knowledge of the undetected natural history of the condition, which remains unobservable. Instead, estimates rely on population-level approaches, such as excess cumulative incidence in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with cessation of screening, where the screened arm shows persistent higher detection rates beyond expected lead times. These methods demand extended follow-up periods exceeding the longest possible lead time—often decades for cancers like breast or prostate—and are susceptible to biases including noncompliance, contamination of control groups, and self-selection in non-attender analyses. Ecological studies comparing screened and unscreened regions or pre- versus post-screening trends face confounders like secular changes in incidence, migration effects, and opportunistic screening, leading to variable estimates; for instance, breast cancer overdiagnosis rates have ranged from 15% to over 50% across studies depending on adjustments for these factors. Modeling approaches simulate disease progression to isolate indolent cases but depend on unverified assumptions about lead-time distributions and the proportion of nonprogressive lesions, often introducing high risks of bias without rigorous sensitivity analyses. Pathological or imaging studies of screen-detected versus clinically detected lesions provide indirect evidence but struggle with incomplete follow-up and inability to distinguish pseudodisease from slowly progressive forms. In non-cancer contexts, such as hypertension or mental health diagnoses, measurement is even less standardized, with reliance on threshold adjustments or incidence trends that conflate improved detection with true prevalence shifts, exacerbating uncertainty. Overall, the lack of a uniform denominator—whether all screen-detected cases, invasive cancers only, or lifetime risk—and inconsistent definitions across studies hinder comparability, with no internationally agreed standards for ongoing monitoring. Attribution of harms to overdiagnosis compounds these issues, as population-level excess detections must be causally linked to adverse outcomes like unnecessary treatments, yet individual cases cannot be segregated from those that might eventually cause symptoms. For example, in prostate cancer screening, autopsy data reveal high prevalence of latent tumors (up to 30-50% in older men), but attributing overtreatment harms solely to overdiagnosis ignores length bias favoring detection of slower-growing cancers and competing mortality risks from comorbidities. Debates persist over whether excess incidence truly reflects overdiagnosis or artifacts like lead-time inflation of early-stage diagnoses, with methodological critiques highlighting that unadjusted excess estimates may overestimate by failing to model mixed progressive and nonprogressive disease distributions. In empirical debates, proponents of screening programs often favor lower-bound estimates from trial data, while critics argue ecological methods better capture real-world overdiagnosis, underscoring how source assumptions about baseline risks influence attributed magnitudes. This attribution gap impedes policy responses, as harms like surgical complications or psychological distress cannot be precisely allocated without resolving measurement ambiguities.

Net Benefits of Screening Amid Overdiagnosis Risks

Screening for certain cancers can produce net benefits by reducing mortality from aggressive, life-threatening cases, even accounting for overdiagnosis of indolent lesions that would not have progressed to cause harm. Randomized controlled trials provide the strongest evidence for such benefits, as they isolate screening's causal impact on outcomes like disease-specific mortality, separate from confounding factors such as improved treatments. For breast cancer, meta-analyses of mammography trials indicate a 15-28% relative reduction in breast cancer mortality for women aged 50-69 invited to screening, translating to approximately 1-2 deaths prevented per 1,000 women screened over 10 years. This mortality benefit persists after adjustments for lead-time and length biases, though overdiagnosis inflates incidence by 10-50% in screened populations, necessitating overtreatment of non-progressive tumors. The net gain hinges on the ratio of lives saved to overdiagnosed cases; early trial eras showed ratios around 1:7, but rising overdiagnosis with modern imaging has worsened this to 1:14 in some models, underscoring diminishing returns without refined criteria for clinically significant disease. In colorectal cancer screening, net benefits appear more robust due to lower overdiagnosis rates for invasive tumors and clearer separation of polyps from cancers via endoscopy or stool tests. Flexible sigmoidoscopy trials, such as the UK Flexi-Scope, demonstrated a 33% reduction in colorectal cancer mortality in the screened group after 11 years, with overdiagnosis limited to about 4-10% of detected invasive cases when using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Modeling estimates suggest lifetime gains of roughly 3 months from sigmoidoscopy, outweighing harms from false positives and polypectomy complications in average-risk adults aged 55-74. Overdiagnosis primarily affects adenomas rather than cancers, allowing targeted removal that prevents progression without excessive intervention for harmless lesions. Prostate cancer screening via prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing illustrates cases where overdiagnosis risks often eclipse benefits for broad populations. The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 20% relative reduction in prostate cancer mortality after 13 years (1.28% absolute risk reduction for men screened every 2-4 years), but this equates to treating 27 additional men per death averted, with overdiagnosis affecting 40-50% of detected cases due to the prevalence of slow-growing, non-lethal tumors. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force analyses conclude that for men aged 55-69, the small absolute mortality benefit (0.8-1.3 fewer deaths per 1,000 screened over a decade) is offset by harms including biopsies, infections, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction from overtreatment. Net benefits may favor higher-risk subgroups, such as Black men, where overdiagnosis rates are lower relative to aggressive disease incidence, but population-wide implementation yields unfavorable harm-benefit ratios. Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in heavy smokers (aged 50-80 with ≥20 pack-years) offers another example of positive net impact, with the National Lung Screening Trial showing a 20% relative mortality reduction (0.4% absolute over 6.5 years), despite 18-25% overdiagnosis from indolent nodules. Benefits accrue primarily from early resection of fast-growing adenocarcinomas, with risk models predicting 100-300 life-years gained per 1,000 screened, surpassing procedural harms like radiation exposure and unnecessary biopsies when eligibility is strictly enforced. Across screenings, empirical net benefits require trial data isolating true progressors from pseudodisease, as overdiagnosis erodes gains by diverting resources to non-beneficial interventions without proportional mortality drops. Ongoing refinements, such as risk-stratified protocols, aim to maximize lives saved while minimizing excess diagnoses.

Approaches to Mitigation

Adjustments to Diagnostic Thresholds and Labeling

Adjusting diagnostic thresholds upward or implementing more stringent criteria represents a key strategy for mitigating overdiagnosis by reducing the identification of indolent or non-progressive conditions that would not cause harm. Lowering thresholds, as seen in hypertension guidelines shifting systolic blood pressure criteria from >150 mmHg to >130 mmHg, expands the diagnosed population without proportional benefits, contributing to overdiagnosis epidemics. In contrast, tightening thresholds—such as optimizing policies in to higher risk levels—can reduce overdiagnosis rates by up to specified percentages while preserving detection of clinically significant cases, according to modeling studies. Similarly, in screening, avoiding overly sensitive computed tomography thresholds prevents unnecessary diagnoses of insignificant clots. These adjustments prioritize causal harm potential over mere abnormality detection, though they require balancing against underdiagnosis risks, with empirical validation through longitudinal outcome data essential for credibility. Refining disease labeling further addresses overdiagnosis by de-emphasizing of low-risk findings, thereby curbing overtreatment driven by psychological impacts of the "" designation. For instance, reclassifying noninvasive follicular neoplasms with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP) from "cancer" to a non-malignant category in 2016 reduced rates for indolent lesions without compromising survival, as these entities exhibit negligible metastatic potential. The cancer label itself provokes patient anxiety and demands aggressive intervention, even for prognostically benign neoplasms, as evidenced in and contexts where low-grade lesions prompt unnecessary procedures. Proposals for "dediagnosing"—systematically revoking labels for conditions lacking net benefit, such as certain or mild states—aim to restore non-medical management, supported by frameworks emphasizing suffering reduction over diagnostic expansion.00261-2/fulltext) In and , reverting broadened criteria (e.g., HbA1c 6.0-6.4%) to exclude borderline cases has been advocated to counteract iatrogenic harms from labeling. Such relabeling demands rigorous re-evaluation of definitions grounded in progression , countering institutional tendencies toward threshold erosion for pharmaceutical or systemic incentives. Empirical challenges persist, as threshold hikes may inadvertently delay intervention in heterogeneous diseases, necessitating risk-stratified approaches over uniform adjustments. Studies indicate that while higher screening thresholds minimize overdiagnosis harms like labeling effects, they correlate with fewer disease-related events but potential regret from missed progressions, underscoring the need for prospective trials. Policy implementation, as in evidence-based guidelines enforcing clear diagnostic cutoffs, shows promise for reduction of overdiagnosis across disciplines. Overall, these adjustments hinge on verifiable harm-benefit ratios, prioritizing conditions with demonstrated causal morbidity over sensitivity-driven expansions. Risk-stratified screening protocols, which tailor testing frequency and intensity to individual risk factors such as genetic markers, family history, and biomarkers, have been proposed to minimize overdiagnosis by focusing resources on populations likely to harbor progressive disease rather than indolent conditions. For instance, in , models integrating mammographic density, polygenic risk scores, and lifestyle factors could reduce overdiagnosis by up to 40% while maintaining mortality benefits, according to simulations from cohort data. Similarly, for , polygenic risk stratification applied to screening trials like the UK PROTECTT study has demonstrated potential to lower the proportion of overdiagnosed low-grade tumors by targeting biennial PSA testing to high-risk men, avoiding unnecessary detection in low-risk groups. These approaches leverage first-principles of disease progression, prioritizing causal factors over uniform population-wide application, though implementation requires validation through randomized trials to confirm net benefits. Enhancements in screening modalities, such as incorporating multiparametric MRI prior to in screening, further refine design by improving specificity and reducing false positives that lead to overdiagnosis. In the PROMIS trial, pre- MRI identified 27% fewer clinically insignificant cancers compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided , allowing deferral of invasive procedures for low-suspicion lesions and promoting . Analogous advancements in screening, like nodule risk calculators in the NLST dataset, adjust thresholds dynamically to flag only high-malignancy-probability findings, potentially cutting overdiagnosis rates from 18-25% in low-dose CT programs. Monitoring frameworks, including excess incidence-to-mortality ratios tracked longitudinally, enable ongoing program adjustments, as evidenced by Danish mammography audits revealing overdiagnosis estimates guiding biennial interval extensions for older women. Informed consent processes for screening must explicitly disclose overdiagnosis risks to enable autonomous , yet surveys indicate deficiencies, with over 90% of regular U.S. screening participants unaware of harms like unnecessary treatment from indolent detections. Ethical frameworks argue that population-level benefits do not justify individual harms without such disclosure, advocating for standardized decision aids that quantify overdiagnosis probabilities—e.g., 15-25% for —alongside benefits like mortality reduction. Improvements include mandatory risk communication in consent forms, as piloted in European programs where video aids improved comprehension of trade-offs, increasing opt-out rates among low-benefit groups without reducing overall uptake. In practice, formal requirements for discussing false positives and overdiagnosis, absent in many U.S. consents as of 2022, could be enforced via regulatory updates, drawing from non-maleficence principles to balance beneficence. These enhancements foster causal realism in patient choices, prioritizing empirical harm probabilities over optimistic benefit framing prevalent in legacy materials.

Policy Reforms and Research Directions

Proposals for policy reforms to address overdiagnosis emphasize revising disease classification processes to incorporate systematic evaluations of harms, such as unnecessary labeling and treatment, using conflict-free expert panels independent of financial or reputational biases. Such reforms draw from models like those employed by the for defining conditions, aiming to prevent the expansion of diagnostic criteria that reclassify benign variations as pathology. Additionally, policymakers advocate limiting broad population-based screening programs in favor of precision approaches targeting high-risk individuals, as demonstrated in contexts where mass has led to substantial overdiagnosis rates estimated at 20-50% of detected cases. These changes are projected to mitigate annual economic burdens exceeding $200 billion in the United States from overdiagnosis-related interventions. Reform efforts also include enhancing regulatory oversight of diagnostic tests and promoting liability adjustments to reduce defensive medicine practices that incentivize excessive testing. International initiatives, such as those from the Preventing Overdiagnosis conference series, call for standardized reporting of overdiagnosis risks in clinical guidelines and trial protocols to inform decisions. Research directions prioritize developing robust methods to quantify overdiagnosis, including the Fair Umpire framework introduced in 2023 for estimating it in non-cancer conditions through comparative incidence and outcome analyses. Condition-specific studies are urged to stratify populations by baseline risk in trials, shifting from binary disease/no-disease paradigms to spectra of severity that link diagnostic accuracy to net clinical outcomes. Further investigations focus on longitudinal tracking of indolent conditions, such as low-risk cancers, to refine screening intervals and thresholds, with calls for interdisciplinary efforts to assess psychological and societal harms beyond mortality metrics. Ongoing scoping reviews highlight needs for applied research in settings to identify mitigation strategies tailored to resource-limited environments.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6889862/
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/overdiagnosis
  3. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/12/e018448
  4. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/1/1
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9784987/
  6. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-screening/overdiagnosis
  7. https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2022/03/breast-cancer-mammogram-overdiagnosis.html
  8. https://www.phrp.com.au/issues/july-2017-volume-27-issue-3/what-is-overdiagnosis-and-why-should-we-take-it-seriously-in-cancer-screening/
  9. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1608683
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6135119/
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782123000322
  12. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/24/Suppl_2/A16.2
  13. https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085%2818%2934825-X/fulltext
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8819710/
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430655/
  16. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/188/10/1812/5522888
  17. https://lowninstitute.org/what-exactly-do-we-mean-by-overdiagnosis/
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3148742/
  19. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/overdiagnosis/
  20. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3528/rr-8
  21. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/94/13/981/2519795
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4322920/
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3540879/
  24. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/102/9/605/894608
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266700542200059X
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7781444/
  27. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809
  28. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.14694/EdBook_AM.2012.32.98
  29. https://www.jwatch.org/na56029/2023/04/13/frequent-psa-screening-prostate-cancer-likely-leads
  30. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.21.02802
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10051653/
  32. https://www.thyroid.org/patient-thyroid-information/ct-for-patients/december-2021/vol-14-issue-12-p-7-8/
  33. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMp1409841
  34. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/15/1079499/ai-cancer-screening-overdiagnosis/
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369527781_Quantification_of_overdiagnosis_in_randomised_trials_of_cancer_screening_an_overview_and_re-analysis_of_systematic_reviews
  36. https://www.e-epih.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.4178/epih/e2015004
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39330046/
  38. https://news.ohsu.edu/2022/03/07/breast-cancer-screening-study-shows-rate-of-overdiagnosis-not-as-high-as-previously-reported
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046423002277
  40. https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.g7773
  41. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1600249
  42. https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc201690
  43. https://corporate.dukehealth.org/news/study-estimates-one-seven-us-breast-cancers-may-be-over-diagnosed
  44. https://tcr.amegroups.org/article/view/24419/html
  45. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/6/e046353
  46. https://evidence.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/EVIDoa2200031
  47. https://news.weill.cornell.edu/news/2022/04/less-prostate-cancer-screening-reduces-overdiagnosis-but-may-miss-aggressive-cases
  48. https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/prostate-cancer-test-by-request-policies-drive-overdiagnosis-and-inequity-with-minimal-benefit-argue-experts/
  49. https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2021/thyroid-cancer-diagnosed-more-in-women
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7232665/
  51. https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/evolving-epidemiological-patterns-of-thyroid-cancer-and-estimates-of-overdiagnosis-in-2013-17-in-63-countries-worldwide-a-population-based-study/
  52. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587%2821%2900083-8/fulltext
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4040004/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556086419304733
  55. https://publications.ersnet.org/content/breathe/16/1/200013
  56. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2696728
  57. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.70049
  58. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777242
  59. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/Suppl_2/A2.3
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11488078/
  61. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/30/Suppl_1/A43.2
  62. https://davis-adams.com/viral-infections-misdiagnosed-as-bacterial/
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435623002998
  64. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mksc.2022.0038
  65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39430664/
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31340212/
  67. https://karger.com/pps/article/88/4/193/283155/Defining-and-Evaluating-Overdiagnosis-in-Mental
  68. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2778451
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9616454/
  70. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/11/e032327
  71. https://nypost.com/2023/04/24/doctor-who-broadened-autism-spectrum-sorry-for-over-diagnosis/
  72. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/autism-surge-where-broadened-diagnosis-went-astray-2025a1000j5l
  73. https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000208876
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6818431/
  75. https://www.thecarlatreport.com/blogs/2-the-carlat-psychiatry-podcast/post/4963-overdiagnosis-with-allen-frances
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735820300775
  77. https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/Suppl_2/A38.2
  78. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/afp-community-blog/entry/overtreatment-of-prostate-cancer-in-the-active-surveillance-era.html
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1410763/
  80. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-019-0478-6
  81. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/34/Supplement_3/ckae144.1611/7843106
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7586591/
  83. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/breast-cancer-overtreatment-costs-u-s-4-billion-a-year
  84. https://www.ejcskn.com/article/S2772-6118%2825%2900079-5/fulltext
  85. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/03/the-economics-of-diagnostic-safety_6e0ed50b.html
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9442491/
  87. https://www.diagnosticsworldnews.com/news/2024/05/10/the-cost-of-overtreatment-how-improved-cancer-diagnostics-can-help-preserve-key-healthcare-resources
  88. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9566.13186
  89. https://www.bu.edu/bostonia/web/overdiagnosis/
  90. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2830758
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4398975/
  92. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK550219/
  93. https://catalogofbias.org/biases/lead-time-bias/
  94. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/screening/research/what-screening-statistics-mean
  95. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0962280219832901
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6279281/
  97. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/109/10/djx060/3845953
  98. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128022092000061
  99. https://thennt.com/nnt/screening-mammography-for-reducing-deaths/
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3104821/
  101. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/32/4/630/6609838
  102. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-023-00763-5
  103. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2808648
  104. https://evidence.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/EVIDra2100035
  105. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/prostate-cancer-screening
  106. https://www.cancer.gov/types/lung/hp/lung-screening-pdq
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556086424002065
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8633447/
  109. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2837961
  110. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/poms.13691
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9945906/
  112. https://smw.ch/index.php/smw/article/view/1972/2825
  113. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2728810
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5774258/
  115. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-impact-of-changing-diagnostic-thresholds-on-screening-related-overdiagnosis_fig1_327058104
  116. https://gh.bmj.com/content/7/10/e008696
  117. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13465
  118. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3009
  119. https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2015289
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5804493/
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28924688/
  122. https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/7/510
  123. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07071415
  124. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6735
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804923001582
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4077659/
  127. https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3502
  128. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/preventing-overdiagnosis-2025-keynote-speakers
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.