Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39270066›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2024

Primary care physicians and laypersons' perceptions of multicancer detection clinical trial designs.

Goli Samimi, Sarah M Temkin, Carol J Weil, Paul K Han, Elyse LeeVan, Wendy S Rubinstein, Tessa Swigart, Sarah Caban, Katherine Dent, Lori M Minasian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Socio-ecological Analysis of Factors Influencing the Perceived Value of Multicancer Early Detection Testing in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Goli SamimiDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0674-003X
Sarah M TemkinOffice of Research on Women's Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6472-2745
Carol J WeilHuman Research Protections and Bioethics, Independent Consultant, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2526-5569
Paul K HanDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0165-1940
Elyse LeeVanDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Wendy S RubinsteinDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8790-9959
Tessa SwigartICF Next, Fairfax, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6572-5457
Sarah CabanICF Next, Fairfax, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5843-4616
Katherine DentICF Next, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Lori M MinasianDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0472-4079

Funding

NCI NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Research Network is launching a pilot study (Vanguard) to determine feasibility of successful completion of a clinical trial of multicancer detection tests. This focus group study reports perceptions of primary care physicians and laypersons of different clinical trial designs and willingness to participate in a multicancer detection clinical trial.

methodsWe undertook 14 focus groups with 88 laypersons and 6 focus groups with 45 primary care physicians. Participants were shown graphics of clinical trial designs and asked for their reactions. Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis of the transcripts were conducted to identify emergent themes.

resultsPrimary care physician and layperson participants recognized the importance of conducting clinical trials to determine the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests. Primary care physicians expressed reluctance to participate in trials because of workload burden, and laypersons expressed hesitancy about enrolling in the control group. Primary care physicians and laypersons expressed concern about a study design in which multicancer detection test results would not be returned to the control group (intended effect), but they respectively indicated a willingness to refer patients to, or participate in, a multicancer detection test clinical trial given transparent and clear communication on collection and use of biospecimens and data, particularly if a multicancer detection test would eventually be run and results eventually returned.

conclusionThis study yielded important insights to guide trial design in planning prospective evaluation of multicancer detection testing. Maintaining transparency and trust while possibly withholding multicancer detection test results to maximize trial feasibility and efficiency is of particular concern.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicFocus GroupsPhysicians, Primary CareResearch DesignAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelEarly Detection of CancerFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient SelectionPerception

Identifiers

PMID39270066
PMCPMC11463188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.