ArticleThe Permanente journal2026
Multicancer Detection Assays: Promise and Potential Harms of a Novel Cancer Screening Tool.
Article in The Permanente journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multicancer detection (MCD) tests are an emerging innovation in cancer screening that use blood samples to detect multiple cancer types at once, potentially identifying malignancies earlier and with greater accessibility than traditional, site-specific screening methods. Several tests have demonstrated the ability to detect cancer signals and suggest tissue of origin, which may enhance screening for cancers with existing screening tests and fill critical gaps for cancers lacking effective screening modalities. However, MCD testing raises concerns about the potential for substantial harm, including false-positive test results leading to short-term emotional distress and wasteful and potentially risky testing, unwarranted reassurance when results are falsely negative, the identification of indolent cancers (overdiagnosis), and increased strain on health care resources. Unclear follow-up protocols and limited harms reporting further complicate their use. Equity issues persist, as clinical trials may lack diverse representation and potentially miss population-specific risks. To ensure that MCD tests provide a net benefit to patients and to minimize the burden on health systems, rigorous evaluation, transparent harms reporting, and the implementation of robust practices for follow-up and shared decision-making are essential. As these tests evolve and their use becomes more widespread, careful integration into existing screening practices will be key to maximizing benefit while minimizing unintended consequences.
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.