ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Diagnostic Implications of Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing in the Investigation of Cancer Symptoms: An Exploratory Retrospective Analysis of the SYMPLIFY Study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance of a multi-cancer early detection test in the randomized controlled NHS-Galleri trial.Nature medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The observational SYMPLIFY study reported the accuracy of a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test in a referred symptomatic population. We explore how the MCED test may contribute to a faster or more efficient diagnosis if acted upon. Methods: We reviewed all cancers diagnosed in SYMPLIFY (ISRCTN10226380) using data collected at study sites plus two years of cancer registry data. All cancer diagnoses were classified based on the congruence between the participant's symptoms, diagnostic referral pathway, MCED test cancer signal origin (CSO) prediction, cancer site, and time to diagnosis. Findings: There were 533 cancers diagnosed among 5461 (9.8%) evaluable participants in SYMPLIFY during the 2-year follow-up period. Among the 79 participants with an apparent false positive test result in the original SYMPLIFY study, 28 (35%) were diagnosed with cancer based on cancer registry data, increasing the MCED PPV to 84.2% (80.1-87.6). In aggregate, only one of the 28 additional patients had a cancer diagnosed that was incongruent with a predicted MCED CSO. Among the 5014 patients with an apparent true negative MCED test result, 113 (2%) received a subsequent cancer diagnosis. In 101 (19%) of the 533 cancers diagnosed, the MCED test result might have contributed to a more efficient diagnosis had it been used to inform the clinical work-up. Conversely, 49 (9%) cancers might have taken longer to diagnose if the MCED test result alone had been used in the diagnostic process, directing investigations based upon an incorrect CSO prediction. Interpretation: These exploratory findings demonstrate a substantially higher rate of cancer diagnoses in symptomatic participants originally classified with a false positive MCED test result than those originally classified as true negative. We show how MCED tests have the potential to assist clinical decision making, which may in turn lead to a timelier cancer diagnosis for one fifth of cancers diagnosed. Funding: GRAIL Bio UK, Ltd. NIHR.
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.