ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Comparative benefits, burdens, and harms of emerging blood-based tests for colorectal cancer screening.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Systems Genetics to Investigate Molecular Pathology of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.Chemical biology & drug design · 2026Review
- Should Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing Replace Guideline-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening? A Comparative Modeling Analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging blood tests may improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake and outcomes but are less sensitive for advanced precancerous lesions than some currently recommended tests. We examine whether these tests meet expectations for the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation.
methodsA decision-analytic model that informed USPSTF was replicated and used to estimate the lifetime benefits (averted CRC cases and deaths, life-years gained [LYG]), burdens (required screening tests and colonoscopies), and harms (colonoscopy-related complications) for annual, biennial, or triennial blood testing through age 45-75 years vs a benchmark of recommended and contemporary stool-based strategies, with colonoscopy screening as the reference. Base-case analyses assumed 100% adherence. Sensitivity analyses evaluated more realistic scenarios.
resultsAmong benchmark strategies, colonoscopy screening had the most benefit, with an estimated 30 CRC deaths averted, 356 LYG, 4270 colonoscopies required, and 15 complications per 1000 adults; stool-based strategies resulted in 81% to 88% of LYG for colonoscopy, 6829-19 476 screening tests, 1523-1880 colonoscopies, and 9-10 complications. By comparison, annual blood testing resulted in 85% to 87% of LYG for colonoscopy and an intermediate number of screenings, colonoscopies, and complications. Biennial and triennial blood testing provided 57% to 72% of LYG for colonoscopy but resulted in net population benefit under plausible scenarios for increased utilization vs existing strategies.
conclusionsThe estimated benefits, burdens, and harms of annual blood testing are within the range of current CRC screening strategies. Biennial and triennial testing should also be considered for recommendation given the potential for increased utilization and net population benefit.
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.