Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39885052›Full record

ReviewDigestive diseases and sciences2025

Are Non-invasive Multi-cancer Early Cancer Detection Tests the Future?

William M Grady

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

William M GradyGastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, USA. wgrady@fredhutch.org.

Funding

Biomarkers for optimizing risk prediction and early detection of cancers of the colon and esophagusU2CCA271902 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER · PI Cecilia C Yeung · 2022 to 2026
$5.3M
NCI NIH HHS U2CCA271902
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current cancer screening methods are effective for detecting early stage cancers and even preventing some cancers, but their effectiveness has only been demonstrated for a handful of cancers, and for many cancers, there are no screening tests clinically available. In addition, the majority of the screening methods are not ideal, resulting in suboptimal compliance and the occurrence of preventable cancers. A screening test that is convenient, safe, accurate and that can screen for multiple cancers is an ideal screening test that would address many of the shortcomings of the current tests. Multi-cancer detection tests (MCD) have the potential to meet these challenges and have engendered substantial enthusiasm in light of this. Using advances in DNA sequencing technology, cancer epigenetics and artificial intelligence, they are able to detect a large number of cancers predominantly via the patterns of methylated DNA alterations, DNA sequence alterations, and DNA fragment patterns of cell free DNA in the plasma and can accurately distinguish the cancer site of origin. Of note, some of the tests also combine circulating free DNA (cfDNA) with protein-based markers. However, for the majority of early stage cancers, the sensitivity is modest and below that of most of the current standard of care cancer screening tests. Furthermore, the clinical utility of screening for many of the cancers detectable by MCD tests remains to be proven. Here we describe the features of MCD tests, review the current data supporting their potential to be used in the clinic for cancer screening, and discuss the knowledge gaps surrounding understanding their clinical utility, with a focus on GI cancer screening.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerNeoplasmsHumansBiomarkers, TumorBiomarkerColorectal cancerMulti-cancer detection testScreening

Identifiers

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.