Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36534989›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2022

EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Ana Duarte, Mark Corbett, Hollie Melton, Melissa Harden, Stephen Palmer, Marta Soares, Mark Simmonds

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Updates in Lung Cancer Screening: A Decade of Evidence.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Liquid biopsy for early detection of lung cancer.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ana DuarteCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0528-4773
Mark CorbettCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5937-1493
Hollie MeltonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3837-510X
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2338-6869
Stephen PalmerCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7268-2560
Marta SoaresCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1579-8513
Mark SimmondsCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1999-8515
Kleijnen Systematic Reviews (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of York · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarlyCDT Lung (Oncimmune Holdings plc, Nottingham, UK) is a blood test to assess malignancy risk in people with solid pulmonary nodules. It measures the presence of seven lung cancer-associated autoantibodies. Elevated levels of these autoantibodies may indicate malignant disease. The results of the test might be used to modify the risk of malignancy estimated by existing risk calculators, including the Brock and Herder models.

objectivesThe objectives were to determine the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EarlyCDT Lung; and to develop a conceptual model and identify evidence requirements for a robust cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, EconLit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database ( NHS EED ) and the international Health Technology Assessment database were searched on 8 March 2021. REVIEW

methodsA systematic review was performed of evidence on EarlyCDT Lung, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Study quality was assessed with the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 tool. Evidence on other components of the pulmonary nodule diagnostic pathway (computerised tomography surveillance, Brock risk, Herder risk, positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and biopsy) was also reviewed. When feasible, bivariate meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using EarlyCDT Lung. Additional reviews of cost-effectiveness studies evaluated (1) other diagnostic strategies for lung cancer and (2) screening approaches for lung cancer. A conceptual model was developed.

resultsA total of 47 clinical publications on EarlyCDT Lung were identified, but only five cohorts (695 patients) reported diagnostic accuracy data on patients with pulmonary nodules. All cohorts were small or at high risk of bias. EarlyCDT Lung on its own was found to have poor diagnostic accuracy, with a summary sensitivity of 20.2% (95% confidence interval 10.5% to 35.5%) and specificity of 92.2% (95% confidence interval 86.2% to 95.8%). This sensitivity was substantially lower than that estimated by the manufacturer (41.3%). No evidence on the clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung was identified. The simulation study suggested that EarlyCDT Lung might potentially have some benefit when considering intermediate risk nodules (10-70% risk) after Herder risk analysis. Two cost-effectiveness studies on EarlyCDT Lung for pulmonary nodules were identified; none was considered suitable to inform the current decision problem. The conceptualisation process identified three core components for a future cost-effectiveness assessment of EarlyCDT Lung: (1) the features of the subpopulations and relevant heterogeneity, (2) the way EarlyCDT Lung test results affect subsequent clinical management decisions and (3) how changes in these decisions can affect outcomes. All reviewed studies linked earlier diagnosis to stage progression and stage shift to final outcomes, but evidence on these components was sparse. LIMITATIONS: The evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules was very limited, preventing meta-analyses and economic analyses.

conclusionsThe evidence on EarlyCDT Lung among patients with pulmonary nodules is insufficient to draw any firm conclusions as to its diagnostic accuracy or clinical or economic value. FUTURE WORK: Prospective cohort studies, in which EarlyCDT Lung is used among patients with identified pulmonary nodules, are required to support a future assessment of the clinical and economic value of this test. Studies should investigate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of EarlyCDT Lung in combination with Brock and Herder risk assessments. A well-designed cost-effectiveness study is also required, integrating emerging relevant evidence with the recommendations in this report. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021242248.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisHematologic TestsHumansLungProspective StudiesDIAGNOSTIC ACCURACYEarlyCDT LUNGECONOMIC ANALYSISLUNG CANCERPULMONARY NODULESSYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID36534989
PMCPMC9791464
OpenAlexW4312047575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.