Factors Likely to Affect the Uptake of Genomic Approaches to Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Scoping Review

Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests: State of the Art and Implications for Radiologists

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are already being marketed as noninvasive, convenient opportunities to test for multiple cancer types with a single blood sample. The technology varies-involving detection of circulating tumor DNA, fragments of DNA, RNA, or proteins unique to each targeted cancer. The priorities and tradeoffs of reaching diagnostic resolution in the setting of possible false positives and negatives remain under active study. Given the well-established role of imaging in lesion detection and characterization for most cancers, radiologists have an essential role to play in selecting diagnostic pathways, determining the validity of test results, resolving false-positive MCED test results, and evaluating tradeoffs for clinical policy. Appropriate access to and use of imaging tests will also factor into clinical guidelines. Thus, all clinicians potentially involved with MCED tests for cancer screening will need to weigh the benefits and harms of MCED testing, including consideration of how the tests will be used alongside or in place of other screening options, how diagnostic confirmation tests should be selected, and what the implications are for policy and reimbursement decisions. Further, patients will need regular support to make informed decisions about screening using MCED tests in the context of their personal cancer risks, health-related values, and access to care.

Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Multicancer detection tests (MCDs) are blood-based tests designed to detect multiple cancer types. It is currently unclear whether these cancer screening tests improve mortality. To understand awareness of MCDs among providers and patients, as well as explore how they perceive the benefits, harms, and acceptability of MCDs, we have undertaken a focus group study in primary care physicians (PCPs) and laypersons to explore knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of cancer screening using MCDs.

METHODS

We conducted six focus groups with 45 PCP participants and 12 focus groups with 80 layperson participants. Participants were identified via a consumer research firm and found eligible following the completion of a screener survey. Moderators used a semi-structured guide containing open-ended questions and prompts to facilitate the discussion. Recordings were transcribed and coded line by line using a codebook developed based on questions and emerging discussion concepts, and emergent themes were identified.

RESULTS

Both PCP and layperson participants felt the that benefits of MCDs included ease of use and potential ability to detect cancers early. However, they felt that additional data is needed to overcome some of the concerns related to MCDs. PCP participants expressed concerns related to lack of practice guidelines, cost of diagnostic follow-ups, privacy and insurance issues, fear/anxiety related to confirmation of MCD results, and malpractice liability related to perceived false negative test results. Layperson participants expressed concerns related to costs, insurance coverage, and privacy, as well as anxiety over the confirmation of a positive test result.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a major need for more rigorous data regarding MCDs to inform the development of guidelines for use as cancer screening tools.

Perceptions of multi-cancer early detection tests among communities facing barriers to health care

Marginalized racial and ethnic groups and rural and lower income communities experience significant cancer inequities. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) provide a simple and less invasive method to screen for multiple cancers at a single access point and may be an important strategy to reduce cancer inequities. In this qualitative study, we explored barriers and facilitators to MCED adoption among communities facing health care access barriers in Alaska, California, and Oregon. We used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze general barriers to cancer screening, MCED-specific barriers, facilitators of MCED adoption, and MCED communication strategies. We found barriers and facilitators to MCED adoption across 4 levels of the social-ecological model: (1) individual, (2) interpersonal, (3) health care system, and (4) societal. These included adverse psychological impacts, positive perceptions of MCEDs, information and knowledge about cancer screening, the quality of the patient-provider relationship, a lack of health care system trustworthiness, logistical accessibility, patient supports, and financial accessibility. Optimal MCED communication strategies included information spread through the medical environment and the community. These findings underscore the importance of understanding and addressing the multilevel factors that may influence MCED adoption among communities facing health care access barriers to advance health equity.

Integrating primary care, shared decision making, and community engagement to facilitate equitable access to multi-cancer early detection clinical trials

Effective implementation of cancer screening programs can reduce disease-specific incidence and mortality. Screening is currently recommended for breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer. However, initial and repeat adherence to screening tests in accordance with current guidelines is sub-optimal, with the lowest rates observed in historically underserved groups. If used in concert with recommended cancer screening tests, new biospecimen-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests could help to identify more cancers that may be amendable to effective treatment. Clinical trials designed to assess the safety and efficacy of MCED tests to assess their potential for reducing cancer mortality are needed and many are underway. In the conduct of MCED test trials, it is crucial that participant recruitment efforts successfully engage participants from diverse populations experiencing cancer disparities. Strategic partnerships involving health systems, clinical practices, and communities can increase the reach of MCED trial recruitment efforts among populations experiencing disparities. This goal can be achieved by developing health system-based learning communities that build understanding of and trust in biomedical research; and by applying innovative methods for identifying eligible trial patients, educating potential participants about research trials, and engaging eligible individuals in shared decision making (SDM) about trial participation. This article describes how a developing consortium of health systems has used this approach to encourage the uptake of cancer screening in a wide range of populations and how such a strategy can facilitate the enrollment of persons from diverse patient and community populations in MCED trials.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection: The New Frontier in Cancer Early Detection

The new generation of cancer early detection tests holds remarkable promise for revolutionizing and changing the paradigm of cancer early detection. Dozens of cancer early detection tests are being developed and evaluated. Some are already commercialized and available for use, most as a complement to and not in place of existing recommended cancer screening tests. This review evaluates existing single- and multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs), discussing their performance characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy. It also critically looks at the potential harms that could result from these tests, including false positive and negative results, the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, psychological and economic harms, and the risk of widening cancer inequities. We also review the large-scale, population-based studies that are being launched in the United States and United Kingdom to determine the impact of MCEDs on clinically relevant outcomes and implications for current practice.

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.

Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45-70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification.

RESULTS

Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve "cancer outcomes" by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

"I was screaming hallelujah": Patient and provider perceptions of blood-based testing for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Blood-based tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can offer many advantages over stool-based tests such as FIT. Yet, we know little about patients' and providers' perceptions of this type of test. We report findings from a qualitative study comparing patient and provider perceptions of blood-based testing for CRC screening.

METHODS

Patient participants were aged 45-75 years and members of a large, integrated health system. Participants were mailed, but did not complete, a FIT through an organized FIT-screening program and were scheduled for a health-care encounter at any of nine clinical sites. Participants were consented to complete a blood draw. We used purposive sampling to select and recruit patients (who did and did not complete the blood test) and providers/specialists who would be involved in offering the blood test to patients or explaining results. We administered telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide and recorded and transcribed all interviews, then coded and analyzed content.

RESULTS

We interviewed 15 patients (11 completed and 4 did not complete the blood test) and 5 providers (3 primary care providers, one gastroenterologist (GI), and one GI medical assistant). Patients were enthusiastic about completing a blood test, citing the simplicity, ease, convenience, and high perceived accuracy of the test. Providers were also receptive to a blood-based option, if adequate test performance could be achieved and if they have information that informs patients about the pros and cons of blood-based screening versus other screening tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and providers were willing and enthusiastic about blood-based CRC screening tests. Future research focusing on performance and communication is needed.

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.