ReviewCancer2025
Multicancer early detection testing: Guidance for primary care discussions with patients.
Review in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of perceived value of multi-cancer early detection testing: a national PRECEDE-PROCEED framework study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Comment on: 'Modelled impact of a multi-cancer early detection screening programme on cancer treatment in England'.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Positive predictive value metrics for multicancer detection tests.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Cancer information seeking and awareness of multi-cancer detection tests among U.S. adults: a cross-sectional study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Tumor-educated platelets in cancer diagnostics and prognostics: A critical appraisal and roadmap for clinical translation.International journal of cancer · 2026Review
- Multi-cancer early detection tests: national estimates of awareness and perceived value in the United States.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Toward scalable early cancer detection: evaluating EHR-based predictive models against traditional screening criteria.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Performance of multiple multi-cancer detection tests using a large independent reference set (Alliance A212102).Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Observational
- Article
- Exploring current cancer screening practices and guidelines for adults under age 50 in the United States.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Epidemiology, early detection, and management of breast cancer in China: A comprehensive review.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
- Liquid Biopsy and Multi-Omic Biomarkers in Breast Cancer: Innovations in Early Detection, Therapy Guidance, and Disease Monitoring.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Liquid biopsies across the cancer care continuum.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Impact of Population Cancer Risk on the Cost-effectiveness 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 · 2025Article
- Primary Care Clinician Preferences and Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Detection Testing Across an Integrated Healthcare System.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Multicancer early detection testing: Guidance for primary care discussions with patients.Cancer · 2025Review
- Ethical considerations of genetic and genomic testing in pediatric oncology: A narrative review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are an emerging technology for cancer screening. MCED tests can detect cancer signals from multiple cancers concurrently in biological samples such as blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily fluids. Some tests can suggest the most likely cancer origin, whereas others report cancer detected somewhere in the body. Although some MCED tests are currently commercially available, none are approved by the Food and Drug Administration or endorsed by any clinical practice guideline or recommendation. Most insurance companies do not currently cover MCED testing. MCED tests have not yet been evaluated for safety and effectiveness in randomized controlled trials. Because patients already are asking for MCED test prescriptions or for interpretation of results from tests acquired elsewhere, clinicians should be prepared to discuss what is known about the benefits, risks, and uncertainties of MCED testing, including performance characteristics in screening populations and preferred follow-up strategies for positive test results. At this time, clinicians should not feel obligated to initiate discussions about MCED testing with their patients. However, clinicians should engage patients who inquire about getting tested or previous MCED test results in shared decision-making, and take the opportunity to offer and help patients complete age- and sex-appropriate guideline-recommended cancer screenings. In this article, the current evidence and issues around MCED testing are summarized, and a framework for shared decision-making discussions is provided.
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.