Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40265568›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2025

Clinical Evaluation of Cancer Signal Origin Prediction and Diagnostic Resolution following Multicancer Early Detection Testing in the PATHFINDER Study.

Catherine R Marinac, Charles H McDonnell, Lincoln D Nadauld, Christina A Dilaveri, Robert Reid, Karen C Chung, Margarita Lopatin, Eric T Fung, Deborah Schrag, Rita Shaknovich and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

11 authors.

Catherine R MarinacDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-9128-3012
Charles H McDonnellSutter Health, Sacramento, California.ORCID 0009-0000-2415-3923
Lincoln D NadauldIntermountain Healthcare, St. George, Utah.ORCID 0000-0002-1935-4998
Christina A DilaveriMayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.ORCID 0009-0007-0875-8253
Robert ReidUS Oncology Research, VA Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, Virginia.ORCID 0009-0008-6890-6833
Karen C ChungGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California.ORCID 0000-0003-4170-8390
Margarita LopatinGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California.ORCID 0009-0005-7331-5577
Eric T FungGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California.ORCID 0009-0008-2060-8618
Deborah SchragMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Institute, New York City, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-4334-5717
Rita ShaknovichGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California.ORCID 0009-0000-5451-5972
Eric A KleinGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California.ORCID 0009-0009-1443-7549

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Blood-based multicancer early detection (MCED) tests represent a new approach for cancer detection. To gain insights into the utility of various approaches of evaluating a cancer signal detected (CSD) test result, we evaluated diagnostic journeys of a subset of 6,662 participants in PATHFINDER who had a CSD on both an initial and refined version of an MCED test that also provided a prediction of cancer signal origin (CSO). We sought to determine whether CSO prediction-guided diagnostic evaluations led to diagnostic resolution; whether participants with known risk factors for cancer beyond age alone and a negative initial diagnostic evaluation had a cancer diagnosis during study follow-up; the utility of whole-body imaging in reaching diagnostic resolution; and differences in the diagnostic journeys needed to reach diagnostic resolution for both true- and false-positive results. Of the 39 participants in this analysis, 82% (32/39) achieved diagnostic resolution after the initial evaluation, including 78% (25/32) who reached resolution specifically with a CSO prediction-directed workup. Eighteen percent (7/39) required additional evaluation for persistent clinical suspicion of cancer, all of whom achieved resolution (3 with and 4 without cancer). Whole-body imaging contributed to diagnostic resolution in only 49% of CSD cases. Approximately 90% of true- and false-positive cases had imaging tests; more true positives versus false positives (81.0% vs. 38.9%) had nonsurgical and/or surgical procedures. In conclusion, CSO prediction-directed evaluations enabled diagnostic resolution for most participants, although some with negative initial evaluations but persistent suspicion of cancer required additional testing. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: MCED testing has the potential to increase detection of cancer at earlier stages. As MCED testing is a new technology, there are few data on the diagnostic journeys patients undergo following testing. We observed that for most patients, CSO prediction-directed workups were efficient, leading to diagnostic resolution after initial evaluation.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID40265568
PMCPMC12314506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.