Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy

Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review

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.

Projecting the Impact of Multi-Cancer Early Detection on Late-Stage Incidence Using Multi-State Disease Modeling

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.

Helping patients understand multi-cancer early detection tests: a scoping review

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.

Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening

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.