ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2025
Sensitivity Measures in Studies of Cancer Early Detection Biomarkers.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe sensitivity of a cancer screening biomarker to detect prevalent preclinical cancer drives screening benefit. Studies estimate sensitivity at different points in the biomarker development process. We examine how closely these estimates reflect the sensitivity to detect preclinical cancer (preclinical sensitivity).
methodsWe posit that preclinical sensitivity is inversely proportional to the preclinical sojourn time. We simulate studies and estimates of sensitivity corresponding to the Early Detection Research Network's Phases of Biomarker Development. Sensitivity estimates based on clinically diagnosed cases (phase II, clinical sensitivity), archived-sample studies (phase III, archived-sample sensitivity), and prospectively screened cohorts (phases IV and V, prospective empirical sensitivity) are defined and compared against the corresponding expected preclinical sensitivity.
resultsClinical sensitivity is generally optimistic. Archived-sample sensitivity is optimistic near clinical diagnosis but may be pessimistic at longer look-back intervals, with bias also dependent on test specificity. Prospective empirical sensitivity is optimistic when the sojourn time is long relative to the screening interval. Bias in prospective empirical sensitivity also depends on the frequency and accuracy of confirmation testing following a positive screening test.
conclusionsSensitivity estimates from different phases of biomarker development should be distinguished and labeled accordingly to facilitate a realistic assessment of diagnostic performance and prediction of potential benefit. IMPACT: Our study highlights the need for clearer terminology to describe the sensitivity of cancer early detection biomarkers. We introduce new labels, explain biases in sensitivity estimates, and advocate for improved communication to enhance understanding of diagnostic test performance.
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.