Trial reportJCO precision oncology2023
Performance of a Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-cancer Detection Test in Individuals Presenting With Symptoms Suspicious for Cancers.
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.
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.
The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas Study
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-cancer early detection tests for general population screening: a systematic literature review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Tumor-educated platelets in cancer diagnostics and prognostics: A critical appraisal and roadmap for clinical translation.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
- The National Health Service-Galleri multicancer screening trial: explanation and justification of unique and important design issues.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Multicenter Study Evaluating a Multi-Target Blood Protein in Vitro Diagnostic Test for Colorectal Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Article
- Multicancer Detection Assays: Promise and Potential Harms of a Novel Cancer Screening Tool.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Clinical Utility of Multicancer Detection in Symptomatic Patients: A Decision-Making Perspective.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Multi-Biofluid Approaches for cftDNA and cftRNA Biomarker Detection: Advances in Early Cancer Detection and Monitoring.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Cell free RNA detection of pancreatic cancer in pre diagnostic high risk and symptomatic patients.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Cardiomyocyte-derived circulating extracellular vesicles allow a non-invasive liquid biopsy of myocardium in health and disease.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Review
- Leveraging multi-cancer blood tests to improve diagnostic efficiency for patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Review
- Blood Test for Multicancer Detection in Symptomatic Individuals.JCO precision oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.