The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Cell-free DNA Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer in adults in the United States. Early detection could prevent more than 90% of colorectal cancer-related deaths, yet more than one third of the screening-eligible population is not up to date with screening despite multiple available tests. A blood-based test has the potential to improve screening adherence, detect colorectal cancer earlier, and reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality. METHODS: We assessed the performance characteristics of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The coprimary outcomes were sensitivity for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) relative to screening colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions. RESULTS: The clinical validation cohort included 10,258 persons, 7861 of whom met eligibility criteria and were evaluable. A total of 83.1% of the participants with colorectal cancer detected by colonoscopy had a positive cfDNA test and 16.9% had a negative test, which indicates a sensitivity of the cfDNA test for detection of colorectal cancer of 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2 to 90.3). Sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer was 87.5% (95% CI, 75.3 to 94.1), and sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 13.2% (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.3). A total of 89.6% of the participants without any advanced colorectal neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) identified on colonoscopy had a negative cfDNA blood-based test, whereas 10.4% had a positive cfDNA blood-based test, which indicates a specificity for any advanced neoplasia of 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8 to 90.3). Specificity for negative colonoscopy (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0 to 90.7). CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk screening population, this cfDNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for colorectal cancer, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. (Funded by Guardant Health; ECLIPSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04136002.).
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Siegel, R. L., Giaquinto, A. N., & Jemal, A. (2024) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21820 · Cited by 9,533
Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023
Siegel, R. L., Wagle, N. S., Cercek, A., Smith, R. A., & Jemal, A. (2023) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21772 · Cited by 3,733
DNA methylation-based biomarkers and the epigenetic clock theory of ageing
Horvath, S., & Raj, K. (2018) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-018-0004-3 · Cited by 3,095
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson, K. W., Barry, M. J., Mangione, C. M., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Krist, A. H., et al. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6238 · Cited by 2,034
Wolf, A. M. D., Fontham, E. T. H., Church, T. R., Flowers, C. R., Guerra, C. E., LaMonte, S. J., Etzioni, R., McKenna, M. T., Oeffinger, K. C., Shih, Y. T., et al. (2018) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21457 · Cited by 1,944
Levin, B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Smith, R. A., Brooks, D., Andrews, K. S., Dash, C., Giardiello, F. M., Glick, S., Levin, T. R., et al. (2008) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2007.0018 · Cited by 1,801
Colonoscopy versus Fecal Immunochemical Testing in Colorectal-Cancer Screening
Quintero, E., Castells, A., Bujanda, L., Cubiella, J., Salas, D., Lanas, Á., Andreu, M., Carballo, F., Morillas, J. D., Hernández, C., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1108895 · Cited by 916
Effect of Colonoscopy Screening on Risks of Colorectal Cancer and Related Death
Bretthauer, M., Løberg, M., Wieszczy, P., Kalager, M., Emilsson, L., Garborg, K., Rupinski, M., Dekker, E., Spaander, M., Bugajski, M., et al. (2022) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2208375 · Cited by 817
Singh, G. K., & Jemal, A. (2017) · Journal of Environmental and Public Health · doi:10.1155/2017/2819372 · Cited by 760
Rex, D. K., Boland, C. R., Dominitz, J. A., Giardiello, F. M., Johnson, D. A., Kaltenbach, T., Levin, T. R., Lieberman, D., & Robertson, D. J. (2017) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013 · Cited by 729
Cited by
Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer: A Review of the Literature
Maida, M., Dahiya, D. S., Shah, Y. R., Tiwari, A., Gopakumar, H., Vohra, I., Khan, A., Jaber, F., Ramai, D., & Facciorusso, A. (2024) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers16152746 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Chung, D. C., Gray, D. M., Singh, H., Issaka, R. B., Raymond, V. M., Eagle, C., Hu, S., Chudova, D. I., Talasaz, A., Greenson, J. K., Sinicrope, F. A., Gupta, S., & Grady, W. M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2024-03-14
- Volume
- 390
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 973-983
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W4392744338
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 65.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Cell-free DNA Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa2304714
- The paper
- Chung, D. C., Gray, D. M., Singh, H., Issaka, R. B., Raymond, V. M., Eagle, C., Hu, S., Chudova, D. I., Talasaz, A., Greenson, J. K., Sinicrope, F. A., Gupta, S., & Grady, W. M. (2024). A Cell-free DNA Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2304714
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.