Cited by 135Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsCancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Universal cancer screening: revolutionary, rational, and realizable

Open access
Ahlquist, David A.·2018·npj Precision Oncology

Abstract

Cancer remains the second leading cause of mortality worldwide, and overall cancer-related deaths are increasing. Despite the survival benefit from early detection, screening has to date targeted only those few organs that harbor tumors of sufficient prevalence to show cost-effectiveness at population levels, leaving most cancer types unscreened. In this perspective overview, a case is made for universal cancer screening as a logical and more inclusive approach with potentially high impact. The centrally important conceptual drivers to universal screening are biological and epidemiological. The shared biology of tumor marker release into a common distant medium, like blood, can be exploited for multi-cancer detection from a single test. And, by aggregating prevalence rates, universal screening allows all cancers (including less common ones) to be included as targets, increases screening efficiency and integration across tumor types, and potentially improves cost-effectiveness over single-organ approaches. The identification of new tumor marker classes with both broad expression across tumor types and site-prediction, remarkable advances in assay technologies, and compelling early clinical data increase the likelihood of actualizing this new paradigm. Multi-organ screening could be achieved by targeting markers within or stemming from the circulation (including blood, urine, saliva, and expired breath) or those exfoliated into common excretory pathways (including the gastrointestinal and female reproductive tracts). Rigorous clinical studies in intended use populations and collaborations between academia, industry, professional societies, and government will be required to bring this lofty vision to a population application.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41698-018-0066-x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahlquist, D. A.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Ahlquist, David A.
Venue
npj Precision Oncology
Published
2018-10-29
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
23-23
ISSN
2397-768X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2894042407
Cited by
135
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Precision Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
multi-cancer early detection, tumor markers, liquid biopsy, blood-based biomarkers, cost-effectiveness, rare tumor, breath biomarkers, cancer mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review