SynthesisCancer medicine2025
Health Economic Evaluations of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Epstein-Barr virus-driven immunosuppression in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a comprehensive review of viral mechanisms, spatial tumor ecosystems, and precision therapeutics.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Present status of prostate cancer diagnosis, limitations, challenges, and future endeavors.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided adjuvant therapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC): ready for primetime?Annals of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Postoperative circulating tumor DNA in stage II colon cancer: biological rationale, clinical evidence, and unresolved challenges.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- From detection to action: ctDNA-MRD surveillance and translational strategies in early breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- MRI-based model for individualized prediction of skull bone destruction and EBV DNA-related risk stratification in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- CRISPR-based platforms for detecting tumor-associated genetic materials in clinical samples.Bioanalysis · 2025Review
- Targeted Screening Strategies for Head and Neck Cancer: A Global Review of Evidence, Technologies, and Cost-Effectiveness.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prognostic Significance of the Comprehensive Biomarker Analysis in Colorectal Cancer.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
backgroundCancer detection remains a significant global healthcare challenge, and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a biomarker for noninvasive cancer screening.
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to describe health economic evaluations of ctDNA for cancer screening.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed (following PRISMA guidelines) across MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the Center for Review and Dissemination. The review included full-scale health economic analyses such as cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, and cost-consequence analyses. The quality of the included reports was assessed using CHEERS 2022 standards, and each report was categorized as excellent, very good, good, or insufficient.
resultsEighteen studies were selected, including four ctDNA tests (EBV-DNA, cf-DNA, mSEPT9, and mt-sDNA) for three types of cancer screening: nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) (2; 11.11%), breast cancer (BC) (1; 5.56%), and colorectal cancer (CRC) (15; 83.33%). Five studies (27.78%) found ctDNA cost-effective for CRC screening (mt-sDNA (with higher uptake than conventional tests) versus fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy (n = 4); mSEPT9 versus computed tomography colonoscopy (CTC) (n = 1)). Thirteen studies (72.22%) found ctDNA not cost-effective for NPC (EBV-DNA versus no screening (n = 2)); BC (cf-DNA versus conventional testing (n = 1)); CRC (mSEPT9 versus FIT or colonoscopy (n = 2)); mt-sDNA versus FIT or colonoscopy (n = 5); mSEPT9 or mt-sDNA versus conventional tests (n = 3)). The CHEERS assessment found all reports in the "very good" category.
conclusionAll ctDNA tests were generally not cost-effective comparing to conventional screening methods, except when the mt-sDNA uptake was higher than the comparators or when mSEPT9 was compared with CTC.
trial registrationCRD42023477732.
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.