ArticleNature medicine2026
Performance and safety of a multi-cancer early detection test: the PATHFINDER 2 study.
Article in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05155605 (The PATHFINDER 2 Study), which is not on this 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.
The PATHFINDER 2 Study: Evaluating the Safety and Performance of the GRAIL Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test in an Eligible Screening Population
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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early cancer detection improves survival; however, most cancer types do not have guideline-recommended screening. We previously reported the first PATHFINDER study that established feasibility of cancer screening with a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that predicts cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic workup. The prospective, interventional PATHFINDER 2 study expands clinical evidence for the MCED test by evaluating co-primary endpoints of MCED performance metrics and safety in participants aged 50 years or older without clinical suspicion of cancer. Performance measures included cancer detection rate, positive and negative predictive values, episode sensitivity, specificity and CSO prediction accuracy. Safety was evaluated in terms of number and type of invasive procedures performed and adverse events due to diagnostic testing, after 12 months of follow-up. Endpoints were analyzed descriptively; no hypothesis testing was performed. Between December 2021 and July 2024, 35,878 participants were enrolled. Among 32,007 performance-analyzable participants, cancer detection rate was 0.54% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.63%), positive predictive value was 60.3% (95% CI: 54.5-65.8%), negative predictive value was 99.2% (95% CI: 99.1-99.3%) and specificity was 99.64% (95% CI: 99.57-99.70%). Episode sensitivity was 39.3% (95% CI: 34.9-44.0%; all cancers) and 69.8% (95% CI: 62.8-76.0%; prespecified 12-cancer subgroup). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 108.9 (95% CI: 87.6-135.2) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.56-0.66), respectively, and the number needed to screen to detect one cancer was 185 (95% CI: 159-215). CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3%. Among 35,335 safety-analyzable participants, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) after a positive MCED test; 90.5% were nonsurgical. No serious study-related adverse events were reported by the time of this analysis. These results provide insights into performance and safety of the MCED test in an intended-use population. Randomized trials and longer follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of MCED tests. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05155605 .
Identifiers
42773207What 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.