ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2022
Multicancer Early Detection: Learning From the Past to Meet the Future.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-cancer early detection tests for general population screening: a systematic literature review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Population-Based Screening Using Low-Dose Chest Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- The Vanguard Study: Assessing feasibility of conducting randomized trials of novel multi-cancer detection tests.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Beyond the Needle: Is Liquid Biopsy the Future of Veterinary Medicine?International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Tumor-educated platelets in cancer diagnostics and prognostics: A critical appraisal and roadmap for clinical translation.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Article
- Experience of NHS diagnostic investigation following a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening test: qualitative interviews with NHS-Galleri trial participants who had a cancer signal detected.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- The INSPECTOR study: enhanced feasibility for clinical translation of a multi-cancer early detection method based on enzyme-assisted high signal-to-noise ratio sequencing of methylated circulating tumor DNA.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Article
- Liquid biopsies across the cancer care continuum.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- The impact of cancer expectations on psychological responses following a cancer signal detected result in asymptomatic multi-cancer detection (MCED) testing.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Primary Care Clinician Preferences and Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Detection Testing Across an Integrated Healthcare System.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Cancer Signal Origin Prediction and Diagnostic Resolution following Multicancer Early Detection Testing in the PATHFINDER Study.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Are Non-invasive Multi-cancer Early Cancer Detection Tests the Future?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Review
- Multicancer early detection testing: Guidance for primary care discussions with patients.Cancer · 2025Review
- Societal views on using risk-based innovations to inform cancer screening and referral policies: findings from three community juries.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Social Media Posts About Medical Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Multi-cancer early detection tests: Attributes for clinical implementation.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Primary care physicians and laypersons' perceptions of multicancer detection clinical trial designs.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests may soon be available to screen for many cancers using a single blood test, yet little is known about these tests beyond their diagnostic performance. Taking lessons from the history of cancer early detection, we highlight 3 factors that influence how performance of early detection tests translates into benefit and benefit-harm trade-offs: the ability to readily confirm a cancer signal, the population testing strategy, and the natural histories of the targeted cancers. We explain why critical gaps in our current knowledge about each factor prevent reliably projecting the expected clinical impact of MCED testing at this point in time. Our goal is to communicate how much uncertainty there is about the possible effects of MCED tests on population health so that patients, providers, regulatory agencies, and the public are well informed about what is reasonable to expect from this potentially important technological advance. We also urge the community to invest in a coordinated effort to collect data on MCED test dissemination and outcomes so that these can be tracked and studied while the tests are rigorously evaluated for benefit, harm, and cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.