ArticleOTO open
Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A State-of-the-Art Review for Otolaryngologists.
Article in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- DNA methylation and machine learning: challenges and perspective toward enhanced clinical diagnostics.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Review
- From Combination Early Detection to Multicancer Testing: Shifting Cancer Care toward Proactive Prevention and Interception.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To provide a review of the science and applicability of current multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for otolaryngologists. Data Sources: PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov, company websites. Review Methods: Using PRISMA methodology, primary literature regarding MCED tests was queried from April 26 to May 12, 2024 using MCED search terms. Ongoing clinical trials incorporating MCED screens were identified via the National Institutes of Health clinicaltrials.gov website. Company websites for available or upcoming MCED tests were reviewed. Conclusion: Long-term robust data regarding the performance characteristics, effects on clinical outcomes, and cost-utility of MCED tests for head and neck cancer are currently lacking. Otolaryngologists should be aware of the implications of MCED tests as these assays become more widely used. Implications for Practice: Although not FDA-approved or covered by insurances at the time of writing of this manuscript, MCED testing is rapidly gaining interest, and patients with positive tests are presenting to otolaryngologists for evaluation. While MCED technologies hold great promise for early detection of disease and potential reduction of morbidity and mortality, more study is needed about their utility for head and neck cancer and optimal diagnostic workflows.
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.