ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2026
Multi-cancer early detection tests: national estimates of awareness and perceived value in the United States.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compute national estimates of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test awareness and perceived value, and to evaluate whether these estimates varied significantly across population groups.
methodsData from the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute. MCED test awareness and perceived value were based on two self-reported items. Independent variables included demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, health status, medical history, and health information behavior and technology use. Robust Poisson regression models estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% CIs.
resultsThe weighted sample represented 244 million U.S. adults, with 16.8% (95% CI 15.2%-18.3%) aware of MCED tests and 42.1% (40.0%-44.2%) perceiving them as very valuable. In adjusted analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (aPR = 1.28 [1.01-1.63]) and health-related social media use (aPR = 1.04 [1.01-1.06]) were significantly associated with MCED test awareness. Factors significantly associated with perceiving MCED tests as very valuable included: minoritized race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black: aPR = 1.31 [1.15-1.50]; Hispanic: aPR = 1.40 [1.22-1.59]), family cancer history (aPR = 1.17 [1.03-1.34]), and frequent patient portal use (≥ 6 times vs. none: aPR = 1.23 [1.06-1.42]). Conversely, adults aged 18-34, 65-74, or 75 + years were significantly less likely to perceive MCED tests as very valuable compared to those aged 50-64 years.
conclusionAs MCED tests advance toward FDA approval and potential health insurance coverage, addressing disparities in awareness and perceived value will require targeted outreach strategies that reach populations with lower digital health engagement and ensure balanced information about both the benefits and limitations of MCED testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42201417What 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.