Observational studyJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
Performance of multiple multi-cancer detection tests using a large independent reference set (Alliance A212102).
Observational study 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. It is linked to trial NCT05334069 (Blinded Reference Set for Multicancer Early Detection Blood Tests), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Blinded Reference Set for Multicancer Early Detection Blood Tests
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Vanguard Study: Assessing feasibility of conducting randomized trials of novel multi-cancer detection tests.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Positive predictive value metrics for multicancer detection tests.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Early detection of multiple cancers: the era of methylation-based liquid biopsy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReference sets are needed to evaluate performance of multi-cancer detection (MCD) assays. The National Cancer Institute funded the Alliance reference set study to assess MCDs for use in future trials.
methodsIndividuals with cancer and controls were recruited; blood specimens were collected prior to cancer treatment. A performance evaluation study was designed utilizing reference set samples. Companies (n = 6) were selected to participate based on review of performance data and ability to utilize the blood collection tube. Companies received samples from cancer types their assay was designed to detect ("targeted"), plus additional "non-targeted" and control samples. Companies reported positive/negative calls, risk scores, and tissue-of-origin (TOO) predictions. Sensitivity was computed for early (I-II) and late (III-IV) stage cases, based on positive/negative calls (SEPN) and at fixed 98% specificity (SE98). Specificity and TOO accuracy were computed.
resultsFive hundred and forty nine cases (encompassing 13 cancer types) and 413 controls from the reference set were included in the study. Companies assessed samples from median 6 (range 5-9) targeted cancer types and median 8 (range: 7-11) overall cancer types. Median (range) specificity was 92.3% (76.5%-98.5%). Median (range) SEPN was 32% (25%-42%) for early stage and 73% (48%-89%) for late stage; while median (range) SE98 was 19% (8%-35%) for early stage and 66% (13%-79%) for late stage. Median sensitivity for non-targeted types was 40% (early stage) and 52% (late stage). Median (range) TOO accuracy (primary predicted site) was 75% (64%-78%).
conclusionsSensitivity and specificity varied widely across assays with early-stage sensitivity substantially lower than late-stage sensitivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05334069.
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.