Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37467458›Full record

Trial reportJCO precision oncology2023

Performance of a Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-cancer Detection Test in Individuals Presenting With Symptoms Suspicious for Cancers.

Alan H Bryce, David D Thiel, Michael V Seiden, Donald Richards, Ying Luan, Marie Coignet, Quan Zhang, Nan Zhang, Earl Hubbell, Kathryn N Kurtzman and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JCO precision oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02889978 (The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT02889978 unknown statusnot on this map

The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study

TypeobservationalSponsorGRAIL, Inc.Ran2016 to 2024Enrolled15,254ConditionsNeoplasms, Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alan H BryceMayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ.ORCID 0000-0002-0206-3895
David D ThielMayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, FL.
Michael V SeidenUS Oncology Research, The Woodlands, TX.
Donald RichardsUS Oncology Research, Tyler, TX.
Ying LuanGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.
Marie CoignetGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-6674-4796
Quan ZhangGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.
Nan ZhangGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.
Earl HubbellGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.ORCID 0000-0001-7301-3759
Kathryn N KurtzmanGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.ORCID 0000-0001-8673-3413
Eric A KleinGRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.ORCID 0000-0002-1783-0698
Menlo School · USCleveland Clinic · USJacksonville College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA multi-cancer detection test using a targeted methylation assay and machine learning classifiers was validated and optimized for screening in prospective, case-controlled Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02889978) substudy 3. Here, we report test performance in a subgroup of participants with symptoms suspicious for cancer to assess the test's ability to potentially facilitate efficient diagnostic evaluation in symptomatic individuals.

methodsWe evaluated test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cancer signal origin [CSO] prediction accuracy) in participants with clinically presenting cancers (CPCs) and noncancer with underlying medical conditions and among two subgroups (65 years and older and GI cancers). Overall survival (OS) of participants who had a cancer signal detected/not detected was compared with SEER-based expected survival.

resultsA total of 2,036 cancer and 1,472 noncancer participants were included. Specificity was high in all noncancer participants (99.5% [95% CI, 98.4 to 99.8]). In participants with CPCs, the overall sensitivity was 64.3% (95% CI, 62.2 to 66.4) and the overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 90.3%. For GI cancers, the overall sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI, 80.6 to 87.1). In participants 65 years and older, test performance was similar to that of all participants. Individuals with cancers not detected had a significantly better OS than that expected from SEER (

conclusionThis test detected a cancer signal with high specificity and CSO prediction accuracy and moderate sensitivity in symptomatic individuals, with especially high performance in participants with GI cancers. The survival analysis implied that the cancers not detected were less clinically aggressive than cancers detected by the test, providing prognostic insights to physicians. This multi-cancer detection test could facilitate efficient workup and stratify cancer risk in symptomatic individuals.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsHumansPrognosisProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37467458
PMCPMC10581635
OpenAlexW4384820799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.