1
|
Rubinstein WS, Patriotis C, Dickherber A, Han PKJ, Katki HA, LeeVan E, Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Skarlupka AL, Temkin SM, Castle PE, Minasian LM. Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review. CA Cancer J Clin 2024; 74:368-382. [PMID: 38517462 PMCID: PMC11226362 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2023] [Revised: 02/06/2024] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard-of-care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow-up for patients with a positive test.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wendy S. Rubinstein
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Christos Patriotis
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Anthony Dickherber
- Center for Strategic Scientific Initiatives, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Paul K. J. Han
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Hormuzd A. Katki
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Elyse LeeVan
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Paul F. Pinsky
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Philip C. Prorok
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Amanda L. Skarlupka
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Sarah M. Temkin
- National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
| | - Philip E. Castle
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Lori M. Minasian
- Division of Cancer Prevention, US National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lange JM, Gogebakan KC, Gulati R, Etzioni R. Projecting the Impact of Multi-Cancer Early Detection on Late-Stage Incidence Using Multi-State Disease Modeling. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024; 33:830-837. [PMID: 38506751 PMCID: PMC11213491 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-23-1470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Revised: 01/29/2024] [Accepted: 03/18/2024] [Indexed: 03/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Downstaging-reduction in late-stage incidence-has been proposed as an endpoint in randomized trials of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests. How downstaging depends on test performance and follow-up has been studied for some cancers but is understudied for cancers without existing screening and for MCED tests that include these cancer types. METHODS We develop a model for cancer natural history that can be fit to registry incidence patterns under minimal inputs and can be estimated for solid cancers without existing screening. Fitted models are combined to project downstaging in MCED trials given sensitivity for early- and late-stage cancers. We fit models for 12 cancers using incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and project downstaging in a simulated trial under variable preclinical latencies and test sensitivities. RESULTS A proof-of-principle lung cancer model approximated downstaging in the National Lung Screening Trial. Given published stage-specific sensitivities for 12 cancers, we projected downstaging ranging from 21% to 43% across plausible preclinical latencies in a hypothetical 3-screen MCED trial. Late-stage incidence reductions manifest soon after screening begins. Downstaging increases with longer early-stage latency or higher early-stage test sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS Even short-term MCED trials could produce substantial downstaging given adequate early-stage test sensitivity. IMPACT Modeling the natural histories of cancers without existing screening facilitates analysis of novel MCED products and trial designs. The framework informs expectations of MCED impact on disease stage at diagnosis and could serve as a building block for designing trials with late-stage incidence as the primary endpoint.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane M. Lange
- Cancer Early Detection Advanced Research Center, Oregon Health and Science University
| | | | - Roman Gulati
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
| | - Ruth Etzioni
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center
- Department of Health Services, University of Washington
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Greene MP, Vassy JL. Helping patients understand multi-cancer early detection tests: a scoping review. Per Med 2024; 21:131-137. [PMID: 38269535 DOI: 10.2217/pme-2023-0090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2023] [Accepted: 01/12/2024] [Indexed: 01/26/2024]
Abstract
Multi-cancer early detection tests are emerging as a revolutionary technology for the early detection of dozens of cancers from a single blood sample, including cancers without proven screening methods. However, they also come with challenges, including false-positive and false-negative results. To help patients make informed decisions, patient education materials are crucial. A review of available materials reveals that, while some materials provide understandable and actionable information, most lack a balanced presentation of the current benefits and risks of multi-cancer early detection testing. The dynamic nature of this field necessitates continuous updates to educational materials, incorporating current evidence and uncertainties.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jason L Vassy
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, 02115 MA, USA
- Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, 02130 MA, USA
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, 02115 MA, USA
- Precision Population Health, Ariadne Labs, Boston, 02215 MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Myers RE, Hallman MH, Shimada A, DiCarlo M, Davis K, Leach WT, Jackson H, Indictor A, Chambers CV. Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening. J Pers Med 2023; 13:1613. [PMID: 38003928 PMCID: PMC10671850 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13111613] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2023] [Revised: 10/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/14/2023] [Indexed: 11/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being developed, but little is known about patient receptivity to their use for cancer screening. The current study assessed patient interest in such testing. Our team conducted a prospective, observational study among primary care patients in a large, urban health system. They were asked to complete a telephone survey that briefly described a new blood test in development to identify multiple types of cancer, but was not currently recommended or covered by insurance. The survey included items to assess respondent background characteristics, perceptions about MCED testing, and interest in having such an MCED test. We also used multivariable analyses to identify factors associated with patient interest in test use. In 2023, we surveyed 159 (32%) of 500 identified patients. Among respondents, 125 (79%) reported a high level of interest in having an MCED test. Interest was not associated with personal background characteristics, but was positively associated with the following expectations: testing would be recommended for cancer screening, be convenient, and be effective in finding early-stage disease (OR = 11.70, 95% CI: 4.02, 34.04, p < 0.001). Research is needed to assess patient interest and actual uptake when detailed information on testing is presented in routine care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ronald E. Myers
- Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA (M.D.); (H.J.); (A.I.)
| | - Mie H. Hallman
- Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA (M.D.); (H.J.); (A.I.)
| | - Ayako Shimada
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Pharmacology, Physiology, and Cancer Biology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA;
| | - Melissa DiCarlo
- Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA (M.D.); (H.J.); (A.I.)
| | - Kaitlyn Davis
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA; (K.D.); (W.T.L.); (C.V.C.)
| | - William T. Leach
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA; (K.D.); (W.T.L.); (C.V.C.)
| | - Hattie Jackson
- Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA (M.D.); (H.J.); (A.I.)
| | - Amanda Indictor
- Division of Population Science, Department of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA (M.D.); (H.J.); (A.I.)
| | - Christopher V. Chambers
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA; (K.D.); (W.T.L.); (C.V.C.)
| |
Collapse
|