Abstract
Background Multi-cancer tests permit identification of multiple cancers with one blood draw. The objective of this study was to quantify potential population impact of a multi-cancer test.
Methods We formulate mathematical expressions for expected numbers of (1) individuals exposed to unnecessary confirmation tests (UCT), (2) cancers detected (CD), and (3) lives saved (LS) given disease prevalence and mortality and the test’s performance and expected mortality reduction. We consider additions of colorectal, liver, lung, ovary, and pancreatic cancer to a test for breast cancer using published performance characteristics of a multi-cancer test and prevalence of each cancer at ages 50, 60, or 70 based on 5-year incidence rates and corresponding 15-year probabilities of cancer death in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry, assuming 20% mortality reduction for each.
Results UCT depends on screening age but is overwhelmingly determined by overall specificity of the test and is relatively insensitive to the types and number of cancers included. For a given overall specificity, UCT/CD is most favorable for higher-prevalence cancers (e.g., UCT/CD = 5.6 for breast+lung versus 6.5 for breast+liver at age 50). Under a common mortality reduction, UCT/LS is most favorable when the test includes higher-mortality cancers (e.g., UCT/LS = 48.5 for breast+lung versus 74.7 for breast+liver at age 50).
Conclusions The harm-benefit tradeoffs of multi-cancer testing depend on the number and type of cancers included. Overall specificity is paramount for controlling unnecessary confirmation tests. For a given overall specificity, multi-cancer tests should prioritize prevalent and/or lethal cancers for which curative treatments exist.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr Etzioni has consulted for Grail in the past. Dr Etzioni holds stock in Seno Medical, a cancer imaging company.
Funding Statement
Authors and institution did not receive payment or services from a third party. Dr Etzioni and other co-authors did not have external funding for this work with the exception of Dr Gulati who was supported by NIH R50 CA221836. Dr Etzioni is nominally supported by the Rosalie and Harold Rea Brown endowed chair but got no money from the chair this past year.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The research is not human subjects research and the grant cited has already been classified non-human-subjects research by Fred Hutch IRB so IRB approval for this specific manuscript is not necessary
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
No primary data has been used in this manuscript only published figures and public data summaries. All references and links to the published material and the public data resource are in the citations
