ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2024
Perspectives on Clinical Adoption Barriers to Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests across Stakeholders.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Transformative Potential of Liquid Biopsies and Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Modern Oncology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bridging the gap: Multi-stakeholder perspectives of molecular diagnostics in oncology.Molecular oncology · 2026Article
- Unequal access to liquid biopsy in colorectal cancer care: a cross-sectional survey of clinicians across hospital tiers in Zhejiang, China.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Cancer and Aging Biomarkers: Classification, Early Detection Technologies and Emerging Research Trends.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Clinician Perspectives on Digital and Computational Pathology: Clinical Benefits, Concerns, and Willingness to Adopt.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Willingness of adults in the United States to have a multicancer detection test.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Primary Care Clinician Preferences and Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Detection Testing Across an Integrated Healthcare System.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Bladder Adenocarcinoma in a Constellation of Multiple Site Malignancies: An Unusual Case and Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Deceptive Measures of "Success" in Early Cancer Detection.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations include routine screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer; however, two out of every three cancer cases occur in other indications, leading to diagnoses in advanced stages of the disease and a higher likelihood of mortality. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can impact cancer screening and early detection by monitoring for multiple different cancer types at once, including indications where screening is not performed routinely today. We conducted a survey amongst healthcare providers (HCPs), payers, and patients within the U.S. health system to understand the current utilization of cancer screening tests and the anticipated barriers to widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests. The results indicated that the community favors the adoption of blood-based MCED tests and that there is broad agreement on the value proposition. Despite this recognition, the survey highlighted that there is limited use today due to the perceived lack of clinical accuracy and utility data, high out-of-pocket patient costs, and lack of payer coverage. To overcome the hurdles for future widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests, increased investment in data generation, education, and implementation of logistical support for HCPs will be critical.
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.