ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Potential Economic Value of Multi-cancer Early Detection Testing Under Differential Cost Trends for Cancer Screening and Management.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Colorectal Lesion Detection: Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMulti-cancer early detection (MCED) tests aim to reduce the clinical and economic burden of cancer by detecting cases at earlier, more treatable stages. Recent trends indicate that the costs of cancer management are escalating, while screening costs have remained relatively stable over the past decade. This study evaluated the impact of these differing cost trends on the cost-effectiveness and net cost of MCED testing in the United States (US).
methodsA hybrid state-transition and decision-tree model was adapted for a lifetime analysis from commercial insurance and Medicare perspectives. Base-case treatment costs were derived from a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database study, and MCED test prices were set at $949 or $712 (25% reduction). Historical annual growth rates ranging from - 5 to 10% were then applied to management and screening costs. Contour plots were used to depict the results from these cost growth scenarios. MCED test performance was informed based on results from a case-control study.
resultsAcross perspectives, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of MCED was between $50,000 and $100,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) with no cost growth. In the commercial insurance perspective, MCED was found to gain QALYs and lower spending when the growth rate of cancer management costs exceeded 2-4% with no MCED cost growth. The ICER exceeded $150,000/QALY if the growth rate of MCED costs exceeded 4-6% with no cancer management cost growth. In Medicare, the same thresholds were reached with management growth rates of 7-8% and screening growth rates > 7%, respectively. Cost neutrality was achieved within 5-10 years when cancer management growth rates significantly exceeded MCED cost growth, but was not reached within 30 years if MCED cost growth rates exceed those of cancer management. Results were robust across conducted scenario and sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsEarly detection with MCED may help mitigate rising cancer management costs, yielding improved cost-effectiveness and, in some scenarios, a path to cost neutrality.
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.