The problem with that is that cancer survival rates are measured from the time of diagnosis, not from the time the cancer presumably began (because that's often difficult to tell). And even with identical treatment efficacy, cancer that is diagnosed early will have a higher five-year survival rate than one that is diagnosed later.
In short, we're lacking good data at the national level to measure what you'd like to measure; and we do have studies (e.g., the one in the first link I gave you) that at the very least cast doubt on the belief that an aggressive cancer screening schedule reduces cancer-related or all-cause mortality. As Robin Hanson puts it: "While cancer screening does consistently lead to more cancer detection and more cancer treatment, it consistently doesn’t lead to lower mortality."
There won't be identical treatment efficacy, because cancer treatments work better the earlier they are started. Early diagnosis is not a data problem, it is an inherent part of why the U.S. gets good results fighting cancer.
In short, we're lacking good data at the national level to measure what you'd like to measure; and we do have studies (e.g., the one in the first link I gave you) that at the very least cast doubt on the belief that an aggressive cancer screening schedule reduces cancer-related or all-cause mortality. As Robin Hanson puts it: "While cancer screening does consistently lead to more cancer detection and more cancer treatment, it consistently doesn’t lead to lower mortality."