Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42775648›Full record

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.

Ruth Etzioni, Larry Kessler, Deb Schrag, Peter Sasieni, Hilary A Robbins, Hormuzd A Katki, Stephen W Duffy, Roman Gulati, Diana Buist, Sean Tunis and 5 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

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.

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

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

15 authors.

Ruth EtzioniDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9164-6370
Larry KesslerDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8024-5424
Deb SchragDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4334-5717
Peter SasieniCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1509-8744
Hilary A RobbinsEarly Detection, Prevention, and Infections Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6041-6866
Hormuzd A KatkiCenter for Early Cancer Detection, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2002-0095
Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention, and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4901-7922
Roman GulatiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7592-6567
Diana BuistData-Driven Strategies for Medicine and Biotechnology, Mercer Island, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5408-2804
Sean TunisTufts Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0235-5289
Rebecca LandySurveillance, Prevention, and Health Services Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4042-4820
Jane LangeCancer Early Detection Advanced Research, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0014-9679
Alpa V PatelPopulation Science, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9997-1218
William L DahutDiscovery Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2766-9703
Robert A SmithCenter for Early Cancer Detection, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3344-2238

Funding

The Early Detection Research Network: Data Management and Coordinating CenterU24CA086368 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI RUTH D ETZIONI, Ziding Feng · 2010 to 2026
$75.7M
NCI Cancer Screening Research Network: Coordinating and Communication CenterUG1CA286954 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER · PI GARNET L. ANDERSON, RUTH D ETZIONI · 2024 to 2026
$12.6M
Modeling and analytics for cancer diagnostics: traversing the data-evidence divideR35CA274442 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER · PI RUTH D ETZIONI · 2022 to 2026
$4.9M
Statistical modeling to support population and translational cancer researchR50CA221836 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Roman Gulati · 2017 to 2026
$2.0M
American Cancer SocietyNCI NIH HHS R35 CA274442NCI NIH HHS R50 CA221836NCI NIH HHS U24 CA086368NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA286954
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Trials as TopicEarly Detection of CancerNeoplasmsResearch DesignAmerican Cancer SocietyHumansIncidenceUnited Statescancer screeninglate‐stage incidencemulticancer early detectionrandomized trialssurrogate end points

Identifiers

PMID42775648
PMCPMC13599050

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.