Literature DB >> 34548329

A Quantitative Framework to Study Potential Benefits and Harms of Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing.

Boshen Jiao1,2, Roman Gulati3, Hormuzd A Katki4, Philip E Castle4, Ruth Etzioni1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multi-cancer tests offer screening for multiple cancers with one blood draw, but the potential population impact is poorly understood.
METHODS: We formulate mathematical expressions for expected numbers of: (i) individuals exposed to unnecessary confirmation tests (EUC), (ii) cancers detected (CD), and (iii) lives saved (LS) given test performance, disease incidence and mortality, and mortality reduction. We add colorectal, liver, lung, ovary, and pancreatic cancer to a test for breast cancer, approximating prevalence at ages 50, 60, or 70 using incidence over the next 5 years and mortality using corresponding probabilities of cancer death over 15 years in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry.
RESULTS: EUC is overwhelmingly determined by specificity. For a given specificity, EUC/CD is most favorable for higher prevalence cancers. Under 99% specificity and sensitivities as published for a 50-cancer test, EUC/CD is 1.1 for breast + lung versus 1.3 for breast + liver at age 50. Under a common mortality reduction associated with screening, EUC/LS> is most favorable when the test includes higher mortality cancers (e.g., 19.9 for breast + lung vs. 30.4 for breast + liver at age 50 assuming a common 10% mortality reduction).
CONCLUSIONS: Published multi-cancer test performance suggests a favorable tradeoff of EUC to CD, yet the full burden of unnecessary confirmations will depend on the posttest work-up protocol. Harm-benefit tradeoffs will be improved if tests prioritize more prevalent and/or lethal cancers for which curative treatments exist. IMPACT: The population impact of multi-cancer testing will depend not only on test performance but also on disease characteristics and efficacy of early treatment.See related commentary by Duffy and Sasieni, p. 3. ©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34548329      PMCID: PMC8755582          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0380

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.090


  10 in total

Review 1.  Principles of cancer screening: lessons from history and study design issues.

Authors:  Jennifer M Croswell; David F Ransohoff; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.929

2.  Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention.

Authors:  Anne Marie Lennon; Adam H Buchanan; Isaac Kinde; Andrew Warren; Ashley Honushefsky; Ariella T Cohain; David H Ledbetter; Fred Sanfilippo; Kathleen Sheridan; Dillenia Rosica; Christian S Adonizio; Hee Jung Hwang; Kamel Lahouel; Joshua D Cohen; Christopher Douville; Aalpen A Patel; Leonardo N Hagmann; David D Rolston; Nirav Malani; Shibin Zhou; Chetan Bettegowda; David L Diehl; Bobbi Urban; Christopher D Still; Lisa Kann; Julie I Woods; Zachary M Salvati; Joseph Vadakara; Rosemary Leeming; Prianka Bhattacharya; Carroll Walter; Alex Parker; Christoph Lengauer; Alison Klein; Cristian Tomasetti; Elliot K Fishman; Ralph H Hruban; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos
Journal:  Science       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Novel blood-based early cancer detection: diagnostics in development.

Authors:  Tomasz M Beer
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.229

4.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Pan-Cancer Early Detection: Hype or Hope?

Authors:  Sudhir Srivastava; Sam Hanash
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 31.743

6.  Sensitive and specific multi-cancer detection and localization using methylation signatures in cell-free DNA.

Authors:  M C Liu; G R Oxnard; E A Klein; C Swanton; M V Seiden
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 32.976

7.  Genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation in patients with cancer.

Authors:  Stephen Cristiano; Alessandro Leal; Jillian Phallen; Jacob Fiksel; Vilmos Adleff; Daniel C Bruhm; Sarah Østrup Jensen; Jamie E Medina; Carolyn Hruban; James R White; Doreen N Palsgrove; Noushin Niknafs; Valsamo Anagnostou; Patrick Forde; Jarushka Naidoo; Kristen Marrone; Julie Brahmer; Brian D Woodward; Hatim Husain; Karlijn L van Rooijen; Mai-Britt Worm Ørntoft; Anders Husted Madsen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Marcel Verheij; Annemieke Cats; Cornelis J A Punt; Geraldine R Vink; Nicole C T van Grieken; Miriam Koopman; Remond J A Fijneman; Julia S Johansen; Hans Jørgen Nielsen; Gerrit A Meijer; Claus Lindbjerg Andersen; Robert B Scharpf; Victor E Velculescu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test.

Authors:  Joshua D Cohen; Lu Li; Yuxuan Wang; Christopher Thoburn; Bahman Afsari; Ludmila Danilova; Christopher Douville; Ammar A Javed; Fay Wong; Austin Mattox; Ralph H Hruban; Christopher L Wolfgang; Michael G Goggins; Marco Dal Molin; Tian-Li Wang; Richard Roden; Alison P Klein; Janine Ptak; Lisa Dobbyn; Joy Schaefer; Natalie Silliman; Maria Popoli; Joshua T Vogelstein; James D Browne; Robert E Schoen; Randall E Brand; Jeanne Tie; Peter Gibbs; Hui-Li Wong; Aaron S Mansfield; Jin Jen; Samir M Hanash; Massimo Falconi; Peter J Allen; Shibin Zhou; Chetan Bettegowda; Luis A Diaz; Cristian Tomasetti; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Anne Marie Lennon; Nickolas Papadopoulos
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 9.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-10-30       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Sensitivity of screening mammography by density and texture: a cohort study from a population-based screening program in Denmark.

Authors:  My von Euler-Chelpin; Martin Lillholm; Ilse Vejborg; Mads Nielsen; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 6.466

  10 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Opportunities for Early Cancer Detection: The Rise of ctDNA Methylation-Based Pan-Cancer Screening Technologies.

Authors:  Nicolas Constantin; Abu Ali Ibn Sina; Darren Korbie; Matt Trau
Journal:  Epigenomes       Date:  2022-02-04
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.