Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40456923›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2025

Preferences for multi-cancer tests (MCTs) in primary care: discrete choice experiments of general practitioners and the general public in England.

John Buckell, Nomalanga Madyiwa, Gail Hayward, Mark R Middleton, F D Richard Hobbs, James Buchanan, Apostolos Tsiachristas, Brian D Nicholson

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

John BuckellHealth Economics Research Centre, Oxford Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, England. john.buckell@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4157-4217
Nomalanga MadyiwaBuckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Ayelsbury, England.
Gail HaywardNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
Mark R MiddletonDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0167-1685
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
James BuchananHealth Economics and Policy Research Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University, London, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2528-0638
Apostolos TsiachristasNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-7362

Funding

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) CTRQQR-2021\10000002Cancer Research UK (CRUK) CTRQQR-2021\1000002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMulti-Cancer tests (MCTs) hold potential to detect cancer across multiple sites and some predict the origin of the cancer signal. Understanding stakeholder preferences for MCTs could help to develop appealing MCTs, encouraging their adoption.

methodsDiscrete Choice Experiments (DCEs) conducted online in England.

resultsGPs (n = 251) and the general public (n = 1005) preferred MCTs that maximised negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and could test for a larger number of cancer sites. A reduction of the NPV of 4.0% was balanced by a 12.5% increase in the PPV for people and a 32.5% increase in PPV for GPs. People from ethnic minority backgrounds placed less importance on whether MCTs can detect multiple cancers. People with more knowledge and experience of cancer placed substantial importance on the MCT being able to detect cancer at an early stage. Both GPs and members of the public preferred the MCT reported in the SYMPLIFY study to FIT, PSA, and CA125, and preferred the SYMPLIFY MCT to 91% (GPs) and 95% (people) of 2048 simulated MCTs.

conclusionsThese findings provide a basis for designing clinical implementation strategies for MCTs, according to their performance characteristics.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerGeneral PractitionersNeoplasmsPatient PreferenceAdultAgedChoice BehaviorEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID40456923
PMCPMC12322097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.