Estimating the Burden of False Positives and Implementation Costs From Adding Multiple Single Cancer Tests or a Single Multi-Cancer Test to Standard-Of-Care Screening

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1002/cam4.70776
Sarina Madhavan, Allan Hackshaw, Earl Hubbell, Ellen T. Chang, Anuraag Kansal, Christina A. Clarke
{"title":"Estimating the Burden of False Positives and Implementation Costs From Adding Multiple Single Cancer Tests or a Single Multi-Cancer Test to Standard-Of-Care Screening","authors":"Sarina Madhavan,&nbsp;Allan Hackshaw,&nbsp;Earl Hubbell,&nbsp;Ellen T. Chang,&nbsp;Anuraag Kansal,&nbsp;Christina A. Clarke","doi":"10.1002/cam4.70776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Blood-based tests present a promising strategy to enhance cancer screening through two distinct approaches. In the traditional paradigm of “one test for one cancer”, single-cancer early detection (SCED) tests a feature high true positive rate (TPR) for individual cancers, but high false-positive rate (FPR). Whereas multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests simultaneously target multiple cancers with one low FPR, offering a new “one test for multiple cancers” approach. However, comparing these two approaches is inherently non-intuitive. We developed a framework for evaluating and comparing the efficiency and downstream costs of these two blood-based screening approaches at the general population level.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We developed two hypothetical screening systems to evaluate the performance efficiency of each blood-based screening approach. The “SCED-10” system featured 10 hypothetical SCED tests, each targeting one cancer type; the “MCED-10” system included a single hypothetical MCED test targeting the same 10 cancer types. We estimated the number of cancers detected, cumulative false positives, and associated costs of obligated testing for positive results for each system over 1 year when added to existing USPSTF-recommended cancer screening for 100,000 US adults aged 50–79.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Compared with MCED-10, SCED-10 detected 1.4× more cancers (412 vs. 298), but had 188× more diagnostic investigations in cancer-free people (93,289 vs. 497), lower efficiency (positive predictive value: 0.44% vs. 38%; number needed to screen: 2062 vs. 334), 3.4× the cost ($329 M vs. $98 M), and 150× higher cumulative burden of false positives per annual round of screening (18 vs. 0.12).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>A screening system for average-risk individuals using multiple SCED tests has a higher rate of false positives and associated costs compared with a single MCED test. A set of SCED tests with the same sensitivity as standard-of-care screening detects only modestly more cancers than an MCED test limited to the same set of cancers.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"14 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cam4.70776","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70776","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Blood-based tests present a promising strategy to enhance cancer screening through two distinct approaches. In the traditional paradigm of “one test for one cancer”, single-cancer early detection (SCED) tests a feature high true positive rate (TPR) for individual cancers, but high false-positive rate (FPR). Whereas multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests simultaneously target multiple cancers with one low FPR, offering a new “one test for multiple cancers” approach. However, comparing these two approaches is inherently non-intuitive. We developed a framework for evaluating and comparing the efficiency and downstream costs of these two blood-based screening approaches at the general population level.

Methods

We developed two hypothetical screening systems to evaluate the performance efficiency of each blood-based screening approach. The “SCED-10” system featured 10 hypothetical SCED tests, each targeting one cancer type; the “MCED-10” system included a single hypothetical MCED test targeting the same 10 cancer types. We estimated the number of cancers detected, cumulative false positives, and associated costs of obligated testing for positive results for each system over 1 year when added to existing USPSTF-recommended cancer screening for 100,000 US adults aged 50–79.

Results

Compared with MCED-10, SCED-10 detected 1.4× more cancers (412 vs. 298), but had 188× more diagnostic investigations in cancer-free people (93,289 vs. 497), lower efficiency (positive predictive value: 0.44% vs. 38%; number needed to screen: 2062 vs. 334), 3.4× the cost ($329 M vs. $98 M), and 150× higher cumulative burden of false positives per annual round of screening (18 vs. 0.12).

Conclusions

A screening system for average-risk individuals using multiple SCED tests has a higher rate of false positives and associated costs compared with a single MCED test. A set of SCED tests with the same sensitivity as standard-of-care screening detects only modestly more cancers than an MCED test limited to the same set of cancers.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Medicine
Cancer Medicine ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
907
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas: Clinical Cancer Research Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations Cancer Biology: Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery. Cancer Prevention: Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach. Bioinformatics: Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers. Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信