Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39898371›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2025

Multi-cancer early detection tests for general population screening: a systematic literature review.

Ros Wade, Sarah Nevitt, Yiwen Liu, Melissa Harden, Claire Khouja, Gary Raine, Rachel Churchill, Sofia Dias

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Signals Ahead: Balancing Cancer Detection Innovation and Evidence.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Liquid Biopsy in the Clinical Management of Cancers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
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

8 authors.

Ros WadeCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8666-8110
Sarah NevittCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9988-2709
Yiwen LiuCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2734-0182
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2338-6869
Claire KhoujaCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9571-3147
Gary RaineCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0354-0518
Rachel ChurchillCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1751-0512
Sofia DiasCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2172-0221

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: General population cancer screening in the United Kingdom is limited to selected cancers. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests aim to detect potential cancer signals from multiple cancers in the blood. The use of a multi-cancer early detection test for population screening requires a high specificity and a reasonable sensitivity to detect early-stage disease so that the benefits of earlier diagnosis and treatment can be realised. Objective: To undertake a systematic literature review of the clinical effectiveness evidence on blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests for screening. Methods: Comprehensive searches of electronic databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and trial registers were undertaken in September 2023 to identify published and unpublished studies of multi-cancer early detection tests. Test manufacturer websites and reference lists of included studies and pertinent reviews were checked for additional studies. The target population was individuals aged 50-79 years without clinical suspicion of cancer. Outcomes of interest included test accuracy, number and proportion of cancers detected (by site and stage), time to diagnostic resolution, mortality, potential harms, health-related quality of life, acceptability and satisfaction. The risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2 checklist. Results were summarised using narrative synthesis. Stakeholders contributed to protocol development, report drafting and interpretation of review findings. Results: Over 8000 records were identified. Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria: 1 ongoing randomised controlled trial, 13 completed cohort studies, 17 completed case-control studies and 5 ongoing cohort or case-control studies. Individual tests claimed to detect from 3 to over 50 different types of cancer. Diagnostic accuracy of currently available multi-cancer early detection tests varied substantially: Galleri Limitations: Study selection was complex; it was often difficult to determine the stage of development of multi-cancer early detection tests. The evidence was limited; there were no completed randomised controlled trials and most included studies had a high overall risk of bias, primarily owing to limited follow-up of participants with negative test results. Only one study of Galleri recruited asymptomatic individuals aged over 50 in the United States of America; however, study results may not be representative of the United Kingdom's general screening population. No meaningful results were reported relating to patient-relevant outcomes, such as mortality, potential harms, health-related quality of life, acceptability or satisfaction. Conclusions: All currently available multi-cancer early-detection tests reported high specificity (> 96%). Sensitivity was highly variable and influenced by study design, population, reference standard test used and length of follow-up. Future work: Further research should report patient-relevant outcomes and consider patient and service impacts. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42023467901. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR161758) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningNeoplasmsAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalUnited KingdomCANCER SCREENINGEARLY DETECTION OF CANCEREVIDENCE SYNTHESISMCEDMULTI-CANCER DETECTIONSYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Identifiers

PMID39898371
PMCPMC11808444

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.