Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42773209›Full record

ArticleNature medicine2026

Performance of a multi-cancer early detection test in the randomized controlled NHS-Galleri trial.

Richard D Neal, Saoirse Dolly, Peter Johnson, Helen Jones, Sir Harpal Kumar, Lennard Y W Lee, Yujin Lee, Wei Liang, Thomas Round, Rebecca Smittenaar and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 NCT05611632 (A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Clinical Utility of a Multi-cancer Early Detection), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

NCT05611632 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

A Randomized, Controlled Trial to Assess the Clinical Utility of a Multi-cancer Early Detection (MCED) Test for Population Screening in the United Kingdom (UK) When Added to Standard of Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorGRAIL, Inc.Ran2021 to 2031Enrolled142,318ConditionsCancerArmsMulti-cancer early detection test (Galleri test)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Richard D NealUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Saoirse DollyGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Peter JohnsonNHS England, London, UK.
Helen JonesEMS Healthcare, Cheshire, UK.
Sir Harpal KumarGRAIL Bio UK Ltd., London, UK.
Lennard Y W LeeUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Yujin LeeQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Wei LiangGRAIL Bio UK Ltd., London, UK.
Thomas RoundKing's College London, London, UK.
Rebecca SmittenaarGRAIL Bio UK Ltd., London, UK.
Jane WarwickQueen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Peter Sasieni *Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. p.sasieni@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1509-8744
Charles Swanton *The Francis Crick Institute, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4299-3018

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The NHS-Galleri trial was a randomized controlled trial evaluating a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test added to usual care. We reported elsewhere that the primary endpoint of a reduction in the incidence of stage III/IV cancer diagnoses in the intervention arm versus control arm was not met. Here we report prespecified secondary test performance endpoints among evaluable intervention arm participants across three annual screening rounds. These analyses were descriptive; there was no hypothesis testing. Participants aged 50-77 years (N = 142,250) were randomized 1:1 into intervention (MCED) or control arms. Intervention arm participants with positive MCED results were referred to National Health Service (NHS) standard-of-care pathways for diagnostic workup, with referrals informed by the predicted cancer signal origin (CSO). Positive test results were returned for 722 of 70,325 (1.03%), 518 of 64,498 (0.80%) and 561 of 62,323 (0.90%) participants in rounds 1-3, respectively. In aggregate, 937 participants had MCED-detected primary cancers. Respective by-round cancer detection rates were 0.60%, 0.40% and 0.41%; positive predictive values were 58.0% (419/722), 50.4% (261/518) and 45.8% (257/561); and negative predictive values were 98.98% (68,895/69,603), 98.90% (63,278/63,980) and 98.86% (61,058/61,762). Across rounds, specificity ranged from 99.50% to 99.60%; episode sensitivity ranged from 26.7% to 37.2% for all cancers and from 47.6% to 63.4% for 12 prespecified types; and CSO accuracy ranged from 91.1% to 93.6%. These data provide insights on the performance of the MCED test in population screening within the NHS setting. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05611632 ; ISRCTN: ISRCTN91431511 .

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.