ArticleCancer research communications2025
A Cost-Effective Two-Step Approach for Multi-Cancer Early Detection in High-Risk Populations.
Article in Cancer research communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Stage at Diagnosis in Pancreatic Cancer: Implications for Precision Screening and Early Detection.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Early Cancer Detection: What's Going on and What's Next.MedComm · 2026Review
- A large-scale, multi-centre validation study of an AI-empowered blood-based test for multi-cancer early detection.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in cancer epigenomics: a review on advances in pan-cancer detection and precision medicine.Epigenetics & chromatin · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractIn population-wide cancer screening, three key issues need to be focused on: the number of cancer cases identified, the number of false positives, and the cost. OncoSeek is a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test using seven protein tumor markers and artificial intelligence. SeekInCare is an MCED test that integrates the seven protein tumor markers and four cancer genomic features from cell-free DNA by shallow whole-genome sequencing. In a two-step approach, the initial screening is conducted using OncoSeek, and SeekInCare is then used as the secondary test for individuals who tested positive by OncoSeek. We simulated a screening in five million adults ages ≥50 years with a cancer incidence rate of 1.9%. Whereas at 91.0% specificity OncoSeek had 441,450 false positives, using the two-step approach significantly reduced false positives to 34,335 (0.7%). Although SeekInCare and Galleri identified more cancer cases (32,015 and 27,455, respectively) than the two-step MCED (21,280), their total costs reached $3,750 million and $4,745 million, respectively. As the positive predictive value of two-step MCED (38.3%) was comparable with SeekInCare (27.7%) and Galleri (38.3%), it reduced the cost by 5.3-fold and 6.6-fold, respectively, amounting to a total cost of $713.6 million and a cost of $143 per individual screened. The cost of per cancer case detected was $117,133 for SeekInCare and $172,828 for Galleri, which were 3.5-fold and 5.2-fold higher, respectively, than the two-step MCED ($33,534). The two-step approach not only significantly reduces false positives but also cuts down the screening cost substantially, making it a cost-effective strategy for population-wide cancer screening. SIGNIFICANCE: Large-scale screening inevitably leads to significant financial burdens on the healthcare system, which is a key factor constraining nationwide screenings. The two-step MCED approach not only maintains comparable performance but also substantially alleviates financial strains compared with the direct use of next-generation sequencing-based MCED tests for massive screenings.
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.