E A Klein1, D Richards2, A Cohn3, M Tummala4, R Lapham5, D Cosgrove6, G Chung7, J Clement8, J Gao9, N Hunkapiller9, A Jamshidi9, K N Kurtzman9, M V Seiden10, C Swanton11, M C Liu12. 1. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. Electronic address: kleine@ccf.org. 2. The US Oncology Network, Tyler, USA. 3. The US Oncology Network, Denver, USA. 4. Mercy Clinic Cancer Center, Springfield, USA. 5. Spartanburg Regional Healthcare System, Spartanburg, USA. 6. Compass Oncology, Vancouver, Canada. 7. The Christ Hospital Health Network, Cincinnati, USA. 8. Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute, Hartford, USA. 9. GRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, USA. 10. US Oncology Research, The Woodlands, USA. 11. The Francis Crick Institute, London, UK; University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK. 12. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test used to complement existing screening could increase the number of cancers detected through population screening, potentially improving clinical outcomes. The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas study (CCGA; NCT02889978) was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study and demonstrated that a blood-based MCED test utilizing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing in combination with machine learning could detect cancer signals across multiple cancer types and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) with high accuracy. The objective of this third and final CCGA substudy was to validate an MCED test version further refined for use as a screening tool. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This pre-specified substudy included 4077 participants in an independent validation set (cancer: n = 2823; non-cancer: n = 1254, non-cancer status confirmed at year-one follow-up). Specificity, sensitivity, and CSO prediction accuracy were measured. RESULTS: Specificity for cancer signal detection was 99.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 99.0% to 99.8%]. Overall sensitivity for cancer signal detection was 51.5% (49.6% to 53.3%); sensitivity increased with stage [stage I: 16.8% (14.5% to 19.5%), stage II: 40.4% (36.8% to 44.1%), stage III: 77.0% (73.4% to 80.3%), stage IV: 90.1% (87.5% to 92.2%)]. Stage I-III sensitivity was 67.6% (64.4% to 70.6%) in 12 pre-specified cancers that account for approximately two-thirds of annual USA cancer deaths and was 40.7% (38.7% to 42.9%) in all cancers. Cancer signals were detected across >50 cancer types. Overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 88.7% (87.0% to 90.2%). CONCLUSION: In this pre-specified, large-scale, clinical validation substudy, the MCED test demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of CSO prediction and detected cancer signals across a wide diversity of cancers. These results support the feasibility of this blood-based MCED test as a complement to existing single-cancer screening tests. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02889978.
BACKGROUND: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test used to complement existing screening could increase the number of cancers detected through population screening, potentially improving clinical outcomes. The Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas study (CCGA; NCT02889978) was a prospective, case-controlled, observational study and demonstrated that a blood-based MCED test utilizing cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing in combination with machine learning could detect cancer signals across multiple cancer types and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) with high accuracy. The objective of this third and final CCGA substudy was to validate an MCED test version further refined for use as a screening tool. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This pre-specified substudy included 4077 participants in an independent validation set (cancer: n = 2823; non-cancer: n = 1254, non-cancer status confirmed at year-one follow-up). Specificity, sensitivity, and CSO prediction accuracy were measured. RESULTS: Specificity for cancer signal detection was 99.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 99.0% to 99.8%]. Overall sensitivity for cancer signal detection was 51.5% (49.6% to 53.3%); sensitivity increased with stage [stage I: 16.8% (14.5% to 19.5%), stage II: 40.4% (36.8% to 44.1%), stage III: 77.0% (73.4% to 80.3%), stage IV: 90.1% (87.5% to 92.2%)]. Stage I-III sensitivity was 67.6% (64.4% to 70.6%) in 12 pre-specified cancers that account for approximately two-thirds of annual USA cancer deaths and was 40.7% (38.7% to 42.9%) in all cancers. Cancer signals were detected across >50 cancer types. Overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 88.7% (87.0% to 90.2%). CONCLUSION: In this pre-specified, large-scale, clinical validation substudy, the MCED test demonstrated high specificity and accuracy of CSO prediction and detected cancer signals across a wide diversity of cancers. These results support the feasibility of this blood-based MCED test as a complement to existing single-cancer screening tests. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02889978.
Authors: Paul D Yousefi; Matthew Suderman; Ryan Langdon; Oliver Whitehurst; George Davey Smith; Caroline L Relton Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: Viswam S Nair; Angela Bik-Yu Hui; Pierre P Massion; Jacob J Chabon; Mohammad S Esfahani; Henning Stehr; Barzin Y Nabet; Li Zhou; Aadel A Chaudhuri; Jalen Benson; Kelsey Ayers; Harmeet Bedi; Meghan Ramsey; Ryan Van Wert; Sanja Antic; Natalie Lui; Leah Backhus; Mark Berry; Arthur W Sung; Joseph B Shrager; Ash A Alizadeh; Maximilian Diehn Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: Francesca Chemi; Simon P Pearce; Alexandra Clipson; Steven M Hill; Alicia-Marie Conway; Sophie A Richardson; Katarzyna Kamieniecka; Rebecca Caeser; Daniel J White; Sumitra Mohan; Victoria Foy; Kathryn L Simpson; Melanie Galvin; Kristopher K Frese; Lynsey Priest; Jacklynn Egger; Alastair Kerr; Pierre P Massion; John T Poirier; Gerard Brady; Fiona Blackhall; Dominic G Rothwell; Charles M Rudin; Caroline Dive Journal: Nat Cancer Date: 2022-08-08
Authors: Nicolas J Walker; Mamunur Rashid; Shirong Yu; Helen Bignell; Casper K Lumby; Carmen M Livi; Kate Howell; David J Morley; Sandro Morganella; Daniel Barrell; Shabhonam Caim; Walraj Gosal; Jens Füllgrabe; Thomas J Charlesworth; Louella Vasquez; Miika Ahdesmäki; Jordan Eizenga; Parul Prabhat; Vitali Proutski; Marie Laurie Murat-Onana; Catherine J Greenwood; Lisa Kirkwood; Meeta Maisuria-Armer; Mengjie Li; Emma Coats; Victoria Winfield; Lachlan MacBean; Toby Stock; Alice Tomé-Fernandez; Yat Chan; Nasir Sheikh; Paula Golder; Michael Steward; Tobias W B Ost; Douglas Stewart; Albert Vilella; Mojtaba Noursalehi; Benedict Paten; Debora Lucarelli; Joanne Mason; Gareth Ridge; Jason Mellad; Suman Shirodkar; Shankar Balasubaramanian; Joanna D Holbrook Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Mary Jo Fackler; Suzana Tulac; Neesha Venkatesan; Adam J Aslam; Timothy N de Guzman; Claudia Mercado-Rodriguez; Leslie M Cope; Bradley M Downs; Abdul Hussain Vali; Wanjun Ding; Jennifer Lehman; Rita Denbow; Jeffrey Reynolds; Morgan E Buckley; Kala Visvanathan; Christopher B Umbricht; Antonio C Wolff; Vered Stearns; Michael Bates; Edwin W Lai; Saraswati Sukumar Journal: Cancer Res Commun Date: 2022-06-01