Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41996412›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2026

Molecular Cancer Signal Localization in MCED Testing Minimizes Radiation and Imaging Burden Compared with Whole-body Imaging Approaches.

Mylynda Massart, Sana Raoof, Earl Hubbell, Eric A Klein

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Molecular Cancer Signal Origin Minimizes Diagnostic Burden: Letter.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Mylynda MassartUniversity of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.ORCID 0000-0002-8835-7957
Sana RaoofThe Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.ORCID 0000-0003-2977-8687
Earl HubbellGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California.ORCID 0000-0001-7301-3759
Eric A KleinGRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California.ORCID 0000-0002-1783-0698

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Efficient strategies for diagnostic evaluation of multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are needed to distinguish true-positive from apparent false-positive (FP) test results. Extending a previously published model, we compared 2 post-positive MCED test diagnostic evaluation strategies: a cancer signal origin (CSO)-guided approach with repeat MCED testing to resolve FPs (CSO-retest strategy) versus a whole-body imaging (WBI)-only strategy employing whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) followed by positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scans to resolve FPs. Analyses evaluated 2 scenarios with different test performance characteristics and specificities, with a number of imaging procedures required and radiation exposure for each strategy as outcomes measures. The CSO-retest strategy resulted in 10- to 20-fold reduction in the use of WBCT/PET/CT versus the WBI-only strategy across both scenarios. A 1% reduction in WBI-only test specificity from 99.5% to 98.5% led to a >3-fold increase in FPs and more than doubled WBI requirements. Estimated radiation exposure for initial diagnostic evaluations for the CSO-retest strategy were 0 to 26.1 millisieverts (mSv), whereas all initial diagnostic evaluations for the WBI-only strategy carried an obligatory exposure of 28 mSv. For the 50% of CSO predictions requiring initial imaging, dose exposure ranged from 0.28 mSv (mammography) to 26.1 mSv (triple-phase renal CT), or 1% to 93% of the dose required for the WBI-only strategy. The results suggest that CSO-guided diagnostic strategies incorporating targeted workups and MCED retesting markedly reduce radiation exposure compared with a WBI-only approach, and small changes in MCED test specificity lead to significantly more unnecessary workups. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Using MCED tests with molecular CSO prediction and MCED retesting to resolve apparent FPs enables targeted evaluations via existing diagnostic pathways, reducing radiation exposure compared with MCED tests without this feature that rely on WBI. These findings have important implications for MCED implementation including safety, cost, and accessibility.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyWhole Body ImagingFalse Positive ReactionsHumansRadiation DosageSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID41996412
PMCPMC13223538

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.