# Consensus checked against original sources: Multi-Cancer Blood Screening and Mortality

Cutoff: 13 October 2026. Consensus supports discovery and checks of specific source aspects; it is not a primary study, a full-paper audit or a causal probability meter.

## Current NHS randomized trial, endpoint hierarchy and age denominator
Consensus correctly reports a failed primary stageIII/IV endpoint and a favorable secondary stageIV contrast, but uses142924 enrolled participants aged50–79. The original primary report actually randomized142250 aged50–77. It gives primary IRR1.03,95%CI0.92–1.14,P=.63 and secondary stageIV IRR0.86,CI0.74–1.00. Neither endpoint is mortality. The publisher confirms online publication22September2026; the official trial site says cancer-death analyses continue. Provider 'No' is interpreted as benefit unestablished, not a completed death trial proving no effect. Additional provider event counts not verified at original abstract depth are not adopted. [Original PMID42776074](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42776074/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## NHS diagnostic performance is descriptive and round specific
Consensus's general high-specificity and tissue-origin discussion is supported, but original metrics are reported by round rather than as one universal percentage. PPV58.0%,50.4%,45.8% and all-cancer episode sensitivity26.7–37.2% accompany specificity99.5–99.6%;937 detected primary cancers are from the same NHS parent. These descriptive analyses had no hypothesis testing. A high NPV does not establish absence of every cancer or saved lives. [Original PMID42773209](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42773209/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## PATHFINDER predictive value, workup and false-positive denominators
Consensus accurately identifies6621 evaluable participants,92signals,35 confirmed cancers,57 false positives and median162-day false-positive diagnostic resolution. The original abstract reports procedures in17 of57 false positives.62% is the proportion among positive signals, not among all screened people. The provider's86 negative-screen cancers/sensitivity29.5% were not verified from the available original abstract or body at this access depth and are not used as load-bearing source facts. Public XML returned500; the receipt remains abstract/status. [Original PMID37805216](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37805216/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Real-world denominator and ascertainment repair
Consensus groups prospective/ambulatory PPVs into ranges without resolving this series' incomplete outcome ascertainment. Actual original Methods/Results show111080 test results,1011 positives,459 voluntary outcome reports and411 completed workups. Among completed asymptomatic workups,128 of259 had invasive cancer, ePPV49.4%; symptomatic and known-active-cancer orders are different populations. Negative outcomes were not collected systematically. Neither the overall test count nor selected reported outcomes establish complete screening sensitivity or mortality benefit. [Original PMID41173830](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41173830/). Access: full_text_partial.

## CCGA stage sensitivity and transportability
Consensus's approximately17% stageI versus90% stageIV sensitivities match the original CCGA validation abstract:16.8% and90.1%. The study included4077 validation participants with2823 known cancers and1254 controls. That case-control spectrum and prevalence differ from prospective population screening, so these values do not replace NHS screening episode sensitivity or directly validate a mortality model. [Original PMID34176681](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34176681/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Original counterexample to universal stage-to-mortality translation
Consensus discusses screening biases but does not resolve this decisive original mortality comparator. Selected original UKCTOCS Methods/Results verify randomized intention-to-screen analysis, masked outcome review and16.3-year median follow-up. Multimodal screening yielded47.2% more stageI and24.5% fewer stageIV ovarian/tubal cancers, while deaths did not fall (primaryP=.58). This directly challenges a universal stage-surrogate bridge without deciding the eventual Galleri death endpoint. [Original PMID33991479](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33991479/). Access: full_text_partial.

## DETECT-A omitted clinical pathway distinction
The prompt requested DETECT-A, but the observed provider answer does not adjudicate its original details. The original prospective report found26 cancers by blood testing,24 via usual screening and46 by neither in10006 women, with a different blood-test/PETCT package. Nine of15 who underwent PETCT had surgical excision, and0.22% of all participants had a futile invasive procedure. Curative-intent treatment is preserved but is not proven cure or a randomized death benefit. [Original PMID32345712](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345712/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Whole-body MRI burdens require MRI originals
The provider table cites a blood-screening study for generic whole-body MRI claims. Actual SHIP original Methods/Results show optional MRI participation plus laboratory disclosures, biopsy-rate increase from6.9 to9.9 per100 observation-years and predominately nonmalignant results, with regional biopsy coverage limits. This supplies MRI-specific cascade evidence, while selection/concurrent disclosure prevents a claim that every additional biopsy was caused by MRI or that net clinical harm is established. [Original PMID32860149](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32860149/). Access: full_text_partial.

## DTC raw-data confirmation is not a universal error rate
Consensus describes DTC genomic actionability/anxiety broadly without an exact original quantitative comparison. The original49-sample referred confirmation series found40% of reported variants false positive, and some increased-risk labels benign. Referral enrichment and the variant denominator are central: this is not40% of all customers or regulated consumer test results. It also does not establish that DTC risk genotyping has the same purpose or clinical effect as MCED screening. [Original PMID29565420](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29565420/). Access: abstract_metadata.

## Methods
Consensus was used to identify literature and cross-check specific claims about design, endpoints, scope and research gaps. Those aspects were checked against original primary abstracts/status records and selected original Methods/Results passages. Consensus output was not treated as original full text. Provider search omissions are not evidence that a study does not exist. Source access and examination receipts are retained. Scite use or monthly unavailability is recorded per case; provider citation counts do not change causal grades.