Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42776074›Full record

Trial reportThe New England journal of medicine2026

Effect of Screening with Multicancer Early-Detection Test on Late-Stage Cancer Diagnosis.

Peter Sasieni, Peter Johnson, Thomas Round, Jane Warwick, Helen Jones, Saoirse Dolly, Lennard Lee, Yujin Lee, Harpal Kumar, Wei Liang and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The New England journal of 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. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
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.

Peter SasieniQueen Mary University of London, London.
Peter JohnsonNHS England, London.
Thomas RoundKing's College London, London.ORCID 0000-0003-4382-1629
Jane WarwickQueen Mary University of London, London.
Helen JonesEMS Healthcare, Cheshire, United Kingdom.
Saoirse DollyGuy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London.
Lennard LeeUniversity of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Yujin LeeQueen Mary University of London, London.
Harpal KumarGRAIL Bio UK, London.
Wei LiangGRAIL Bio UK, London.
Rebecca SmittenaarGRAIL Bio UK, London.
Richard D NealUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Charles SwantonUniversity College London, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether screening with blood-based early-detection tests for multiple cancers in addition to usual care has clinical utility is unknown.

methodsIn a randomized, controlled trial conducted in England, we obtained peripheral blood from persons 50 to 77 years of age at up to three annual visits. After baseline blood collection, participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (participants whose blood was tested) or the control group (participants whose blood was stored). Participants and trial personnel were initially unaware of the group assignments. The primary end point was stage III or IV cancer among 12 prespecified types of cancer, and a key secondary end point was stage IV cancer among the 12 prespecified types. The differences between the groups in the incidence rate (the number of first eligible events divided by person-years at risk) were measured after three screening rounds and at least 12 months of follow-up after the last participant's third visit.

resultsOverall, 71,122 participants were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 71,128 to the control group. The incidence rate of stage III or IV cancer (primary end point) did not differ significantly between the groups (incidence rate ratio [intervention vs. control], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.14, P = 0.63). The incidence rate ratio for stage IV cancer (a key secondary end point) after 3 screening rounds was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.00). Less than 1% of participants had trial-related adverse events; none were serious.

conclusionsIn this trial, we did not observe a lower incidence rate of stage III or IV cancers across 12 prespecified cancers after three screening rounds with multicancer early-detection testing plus usual care than with usual care alone. Further follow-up is warranted to assess the way in which findings for stage III or IV cancers and the between-group difference in stage IV cancers evolve over time. (Funded by Grail; NHS-Galleri ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05611632; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN91431511.).

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningNeoplasmsReagent Kits, DiagnosticAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID42776074
PMCPMC7619610

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.