Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39404871›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of colorectal disease2024

A cell-free DNA colorectal cancer screening test promising enhanced accessibility and early detection.

Mahsheed Tariq, Mansoor Ahmed, Marwa Khan, Fawad Khan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of colorectal disease, 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. Trial
  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

4 authors.

Mahsheed TariqRehman Medical College (MBBS), Peshawar, Pakistan.
Mansoor AhmedLiaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (MBBS), Jamshoro, Pakistan. mansoorsalahuddin42@gmail.com.
Marwa KhanRehman Medical College (MBBS), Peshawar, Pakistan.
Fawad KhanNowshera Medical College (MBBS), Nowshera, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant global health challenge, with approximately 1.9 million new cases and 930,000 deaths reported in 2020. The highest incidence rates are observed in Australia/New Zealand and Europe, while lower rates are found in Africa and Southern Asia. Projections for 2040 indicate a rise to 3.2 million new cases and 1.6 million deaths, particularly in high development index regions, underscoring the need for improved prevention and detection. Despite advancements in screening methods and polyp removal, CRC mortality remains high in the United States due to non-adherence to recommended tests. Barriers such as cost and lack of insurance contribute to this issue. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based testing offers a promising alternative, with studies showing 83.1% sensitivity for CRC and 89.6% specificity for advanced neoplasia, comparable to traditional screening methods but with reduced risk of adverse events. The recent FDA approval of the Shield blood test, which has demonstrated 83% efficacy in detecting late-stage CRC, represents a significant advancement. Incorporating cfDNA testing into screening protocols could improve accessibility and compliance, especially for those unwilling or unable to undergo more invasive procedures. Regular evaluation of cfDNA testing, including Shield, is essential for enhancing CRC screening strategies and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Cell-Free Nucleic AcidsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHealth Services AccessibilityHumansCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCell-free DNA testingColorectal cancer screeningNon-invasive diagnosticsSensitivity and specificityShield blood test

Identifiers

PMID39404871
PMCPMC11480107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.