ArticleCancer medicine2024
Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tumor-educated platelets in cancer diagnostics and prognostics: A critical appraisal and roadmap for clinical translation.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Increasing power and robustness in screening trials by testing stored specimens in the control arm.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Multi-cancer early detection tests: national estimates of awareness and perceived value in the United States.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Patient, community, and clinician beliefs about multi-cancer detection tests: implications for the evidence needed to recommend routine use.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Willingness of adults in the United States to have a multicancer detection test.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Preferences for multi-cancer tests (MCTs) in primary care: discrete choice experiments of general practitioners and the general public in England.British journal of cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMulticancer detection tests (MCDs) are blood-based tests designed to detect multiple cancer types. It is currently unclear whether these cancer screening tests improve mortality. To understand awareness of MCDs among providers and patients, as well as explore how they perceive the benefits, harms, and acceptability of MCDs, we have undertaken a focus group study in primary care physicians (PCPs) and laypersons to explore knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of cancer screening using MCDs.
methodsWe conducted six focus groups with 45 PCP participants and 12 focus groups with 80 layperson participants. Participants were identified via a consumer research firm and found eligible following the completion of a screener survey. Moderators used a semi-structured guide containing open-ended questions and prompts to facilitate the discussion. Recordings were transcribed and coded line by line using a codebook developed based on questions and emerging discussion concepts, and emergent themes were identified.
resultsBoth PCP and layperson participants felt the that benefits of MCDs included ease of use and potential ability to detect cancers early. However, they felt that additional data is needed to overcome some of the concerns related to MCDs. PCP participants expressed concerns related to lack of practice guidelines, cost of diagnostic follow-ups, privacy and insurance issues, fear/anxiety related to confirmation of MCD results, and malpractice liability related to perceived false negative test results. Layperson participants expressed concerns related to costs, insurance coverage, and privacy, as well as anxiety over the confirmation of a positive test result.
conclusionsThere is a major need for more rigorous data regarding MCDs to inform the development of guidelines for use as cancer screening tools.
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.