Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39206679›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2024

Lexicon for blood-based early detection and screening: BLOODPAC consensus document.

Christina A Clarke, Breeana L Mitchell, Girish Putcha, Emma Alme, Peter Bach, Jonathan P Beer, Tomasz M Beer, Michelle A Beidelschies, Jody Hoyos, Eric Klein and 13 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Navigating Complexity: Perspectives on Risk Assessment in the Era of New Blood-Based Tests for Early Cancer Detection.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

23 authors.

Christina A ClarkeGRAIL, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Breeana L MitchellNatera, Austin, Texas, USA.
Girish PutchaPrecision Medicine & Diagnostics, Los Altos Hills, California, USA.
Emma AlmeGuardant Health, Redwood City, California, USA.
Peter BachDelfi, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jonathan P BeerBristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Tomasz M BeerExact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Michelle A BeidelschiesExact Sciences, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Jody HoyosPrevent Cancer Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Eric KleinGRAIL, Menlo Park, California, USA.
Peter KuhnUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2629-4505
Nancy KrunicNovartis, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.
Kathryn LangFreenome, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jerry S H LeeUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1515-0952
Dorys Lopez RamosBLOODPAC, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-1415-3135
David MorgensternDelfi, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0554-3947
Elissa QuinnAstraZeneca, Wilmington, Delaware, USA.
Victoria M RaymondGuardant Health, Redwood City, California, USA.
Wendy S RubinsteinNational Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8790-9959
Stephanie A SanchezNatera, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2946-0281
Ryan SerraQuest Diagnostics, Secaucus, New Jersey, USA.
Mark StewartFriends of Cancer Research, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4847-0736
Lauren C LeimanBLOODPAC, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the United States, 2.0 million new cancer cases and around 600,000 cancer deaths are estimated to occur in 2024. Early detection gives cancer patients the best chance for treatment success. Currently, cancer screening in the general population is recommended for a limited set of cancers; as a result, most cancer types are not regularly screened. Thus, in recent years, we have seen a wave of novel, non-invasive, single- and multi-cancer detection tests (SCD and MCD), promising detection of cancer signals prior to the onset of symptoms and/or clinical diagnosis. To accelerate the development, access, and adoption of these tests, the Blood Profiling Atlas in Cancer (BLOODPAC) Consortium, a collaborative infrastructure for developing standards and best practices, established the Early Detection & Screening (ED&S) Working Group. The early detection space is in need of consensus around definitions for SCD and MCD tests that harmonize terminology across diverse stakeholders, thereby reducing communication barriers and ultimately advancing the discipline. To this end, the ED&S Working Group compiled a lexicon of terms, chosen based on perceived importance, frequency of use, lack of clarity, and unique challenges in the context of SCD and MCD tests. This lexicon was submitted to the FDA for their feedback, which was incorporated. In this work, we present the first installment of the lexicon, consisting of 14 primary terms, that will be part of an online dictionary and provide a foundation for future projects of BLOODPAC's ED&S Working Group.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorHumansTerminology as TopicUnited StatesBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID39206679
PMCPMC11358766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.