ArticleFuture science OA2024
A consultation and work-up diagnosis protocol for a multicancer early detection test: a case series study.
Article in Future science OA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early detection of multiple cancers: the era of methylation-based liquid biopsy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Prospective validation study: a non-invasive circulating tumor DNA-based assay for simultaneous early detection of multiple cancers in asymptomatic adults.BMC medicine · 2025Observational
- Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests (MCEDs) as a Potential Approach to Address Current Gaps in Cancer Screening.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
51 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The emergence of multicancer early detection (MCED) tests holds promise for improving early cancer detection and public health outcomes. However, positive MCED test results require confirmation through recommended cancer diagnostic imaging modalities. To address these challenges, we have developed a consultation and work-up protocol for definitive diagnostic results post MCED testing, named SPOT-MAS. Developed through circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis and in line with professional guidelines and advisory board consensus, this protocol standardizes information to aid general practitioners in accessing, interpreting and managing SPOT-MAS results. Clinical effectiveness is demonstrated through a series of identified cancer cases. Our research indicates that the protocol could empower healthcare professionals to confidently interpret circulating tumor DNA test results for 5 common types of cancer, thereby facilitating the clinical integration of MCED tests.
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.