Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41543810›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026

A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Multicenter Study Evaluating a Multi-Target Blood Protein in Vitro Diagnostic Test for Colorectal Cancer.

Emily Y He, Guy A van Hazel, Andrew M Sloss, Stephen Pianko, Gregor J Brown, Philip R Clingan, Rajvinder Singh, Ann C Solterbeck, Robert Traficante, Louise Formby-Miller and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Emily Y HeConcord Repatriation General Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8231-7735
Guy A van HazelSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of WA, Perth, WA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9717-7993
Andrew M SlossSunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, QLD, Australia.
Stephen PiankoMonash Medical Centre, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7421-2140
Gregor J BrownThe Alfred Hospital, Prahran, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9807-7537
Philip R ClinganIllawarra Private Cancer Care Research Centre, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4766-9954
Rajvinder SinghLyell McEwin Hospital, Elizabeth Vale, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9116-6054
Ann C SolterbeckStatistical Revelations Pty Ltd, Sandringham, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0432-0226
Robert TraficanteStatistical Revelations Pty Ltd, Sandringham, VIC, Australia.
Louise Formby-MillerRhythm Biosciences Limited, Parkville, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8063-071X
Trevor LockettRhythm Biosciences Limited, Parkville, VIC, Australia. trevor.lockett@rhythmbio.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4035-9678
Finlay MacraeDepartment of Health and Human Services, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Cancer Agency, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEarlier detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) can improve survival rates. A simple, effective blood test may help improve screening participation. The multi-target blood protein (MTBP; ColoSTAT

methodsThis cross-sectional, multicenter study enrolled participants into two cohorts: participants recently colonoscopically diagnosed with CRC and progressing to surgery or neoadjuvant treatment (Cohort 1), and participants with no CRC history who were scheduled for colonoscopy (Cohort 2). Due to COVID-19 pandemic-related recruitment delays, Cohort 1 was supplemented with bio-banked blood samples (BBS) from patients with clinically confirmed CRC. Performance goals for sensitivity and specificity of the MTBP test compared to colonoscopy were ≥ 73% (lower 95% confidence limit [LCL] > 60%) and ≥ 90% (LCL > 80%), respectively.

resultsCohort 1 included 29 patients, Cohort 2 enrolled 768 patients and 192 BBS were included. Median age when providing samples was 64 years (range, 40-85 years); 53.4% were female. Definitive MTBP test results were obtained from 657 samples. 112 and 389 samples met the criteria for inclusion in the primary sensitivity and specificity analyses, respectively. The sensitivity of ColoSTAT

conclusionsThe MTBP test met pre-specified primary performance endpoints and warrants further evaluation in clinical populations at elevated risk of CRC.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBlood ProteinsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonoscopyCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorBlood ProteinsBiomarkersColonoscopyColorectal cancerEarly detection of cancerMass screening

Identifiers

PMID41543810
PMCPMC12811346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.