ArticleCancer2026
Recommendations of the American Cancer Society workshop on design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of multicancer early detection trials with late-stage incidence end points and post-trial ongoing evaluation-The Peachtree Consensus.
Article in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn a new era of multicancer early detection (MCED), late-stage incidence has been proposed as an end point for the evaluation of test efficacy, marking a departure from the established end point of cancer mortality.
methodsThe American Cancer Society convened a panel of 15 academic researchers with expertise in cancer screening evaluation to develop principles assuring the validity and interpretability of MCED trials with late-stage incidence end points and advancing implementation of tests with potential for meaningful clinical utility.
resultsThe definition of late-stage cancer is critical and affects study design, interpretation, and outcomes. The authors of the Peachtree Consensus recommend considering cancer-type-specific definitions of late stage and paying attention to comparability of staging intensity in both trial arms. The duration of screening and the follow-up interval after the last screen should be chosen based on the preclinical early stage and late-stage durations of the target cancer types. The authors also recommend reporting aggregate results and results for individual cancer types as numbers permit and summarizing relative and absolute benefits. Predicted mortality reductions should be calculated to contextualize a late-stage result and the inputs and assumptions involved should be reported. Given a significant late-stage reduction suggestive of meaningful clinical benefit, the authors support launching consortium and demonstration studies while continuing to track trial mortality outcomes.
conclusionsTrials with late-stage incidence end points that are conducted using these principles should support the development of evidence-based screening guidelines as well as the creation of accessible data resources for observational and modeling studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.