Shao · Tumori 2023 · post-hoc observational cohort analysis · n=?

Multi-cancer early detection test sensitivity for cancers with and without current population-level screening options.

Cited 19 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Post-hoc subgroup analysis of an observational diagnostic study

PubMed 36316952 · doi:10.1177/03008916221133136 · record verified 2026-08-30

What was done

This was a post-hoc analysis of cancer participants from the third Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA) substudy (NCT02889978). The authors evaluated the diagnostic sensitivity of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test across three groups: solid screened tumors (breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate), solid unscreened tumors, and hematologic malignancies. Test sensitivity was evaluated across all stages, specifically across clinical stages I–III, overall, and in participants aged ≥50 years.

What was found

Across all cancer stages, aggregate test sensitivity was 34% for solid screened tumors, 66% for solid unscreened tumors, and 55% for hematologic malignancies (with similar values in participants aged ≥50 years). When restricted to stages I to III, aggregate sensitivity was 27% in solid screened tumors, 53% in solid unscreened tumors, and 60% in hematologic malignancies. Among 18 solid unscreened cancer types, sensitivity exceeded 50% in 13 of 18 cancers (72%) and exceeded 75% in 8 of 18 cancers (44%).

Why it matters

The findings show that circulating cell-free DNA testing achieves higher sensitivity in cancers that currently lack standard population screening methods than in routinely screened solid cancers, indicating a potential role in supplementing established screening regimens.

Limits

The abstract lacks total sample size numbers and confidence intervals. As a post-hoc analysis in a pre-diagnosed cancer cohort, it does not assess real-world screening performance, specificity, positive predictive value, stage shifts, overdiagnosis, or mortality benefit. Sensitivity for stage I alone is not reported separately from stages II and III.

Cited by