Performance and safety of a multi-cancer early detection test: the PATHFINDER 2 study

IF 52.5 1区 医学 Q1 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Nima Nabavizadeh, Charles McDonnell, Dax Kurbegov, Marc Matrana, Shirish Gadgeel, Raymond H. Kim, Gretchen Stipec, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Michael J. Demeure, James W. Lillard Jr., Rebecca Kaltman, Jennifer Tran, Alan Roth, Sami Tahhan, Andrew Poklepovic, Donald Richards, Margarita Lopatin, Celine Marquez, Margaret McCusker, Karthik V. Giridhar
{"title":"Performance and safety of a multi-cancer early detection test: the PATHFINDER 2 study","authors":"Nima Nabavizadeh, Charles McDonnell, Dax Kurbegov, Marc Matrana, Shirish Gadgeel, Raymond H. Kim, Gretchen Stipec, Kevin C. Oeffinger, Michael J. Demeure, James W. Lillard Jr., Rebecca Kaltman, Jennifer Tran, Alan Roth, Sami Tahhan, Andrew Poklepovic, Donald Richards, Margarita Lopatin, Celine Marquez, Margaret McCusker, Karthik V. Giridhar","doi":"10.1038/s41591-026-04618-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Early cancer detection improves survival; however, most cancer types do not have guideline-recommended screening. We previously reported the first PATHFINDER study that established feasibility of cancer screening with a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that predicts cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic workup. The prospective, interventional PATHFINDER 2 study expands clinical evidence for the MCED test by evaluating co-primary endpoints of MCED performance metrics and safety in participants aged 50 years or older without clinical suspicion of cancer. Performance measures included cancer detection rate, positive and negative predictive values, episode sensitivity, specificity and CSO prediction accuracy. Safety was evaluated in terms of number and type of invasive procedures performed and adverse events due to diagnostic testing, after 12 months of follow-up. Endpoints were analyzed descriptively; no hypothesis testing was performed. Between December 2021 and July 2024, 35,878 participants were enrolled. Among 32,007 performance-analyzable participants, cancer detection rate was 0.54% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47−0.63%), positive predictive value was 60.3% (95% CI: 54.5−65.8%), negative predictive value was 99.2% (95% CI: 99.1−99.3%) and specificity was 99.64% (95% CI: 99.57−99.70%). Episode sensitivity was 39.3% (95% CI: 34.9−44.0%; all cancers) and 69.8% (95% CI: 62.8−76.0%; prespecified 12-cancer subgroup). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 108.9 (95% CI: 87.6−135.2) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.56−0.66), respectively, and the number needed to screen to detect one cancer was 185 (95% CI: 159−215). CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3%. Among 35,335 safety-analyzable participants, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) after a positive MCED test; 90.5% were nonsurgical. No serious study-related adverse events were reported by the time of this analysis. These results provide insights into performance and safety of the MCED test in an intended-use population. Randomized trials and longer follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of MCED tests. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05155605 . The interventional PATHFINDER 2 study provides insights on the safety and performance of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection test in an intended-use population, including more than 35,000 participants aged 50 years or older.","PeriodicalId":19037,"journal":{"name":"Nature Medicine","volume":"32 10","pages":"3760-3769"},"PeriodicalIF":52.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.comhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04618-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04618-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Early cancer detection improves survival; however, most cancer types do not have guideline-recommended screening. We previously reported the first PATHFINDER study that established feasibility of cancer screening with a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that predicts cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic workup. The prospective, interventional PATHFINDER 2 study expands clinical evidence for the MCED test by evaluating co-primary endpoints of MCED performance metrics and safety in participants aged 50 years or older without clinical suspicion of cancer. Performance measures included cancer detection rate, positive and negative predictive values, episode sensitivity, specificity and CSO prediction accuracy. Safety was evaluated in terms of number and type of invasive procedures performed and adverse events due to diagnostic testing, after 12 months of follow-up. Endpoints were analyzed descriptively; no hypothesis testing was performed. Between December 2021 and July 2024, 35,878 participants were enrolled. Among 32,007 performance-analyzable participants, cancer detection rate was 0.54% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47−0.63%), positive predictive value was 60.3% (95% CI: 54.5−65.8%), negative predictive value was 99.2% (95% CI: 99.1−99.3%) and specificity was 99.64% (95% CI: 99.57−99.70%). Episode sensitivity was 39.3% (95% CI: 34.9−44.0%; all cancers) and 69.8% (95% CI: 62.8−76.0%; prespecified 12-cancer subgroup). Positive and negative likelihood ratios were 108.9 (95% CI: 87.6−135.2) and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.56−0.66), respectively, and the number needed to screen to detect one cancer was 185 (95% CI: 159−215). CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3%. Among 35,335 safety-analyzable participants, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) after a positive MCED test; 90.5% were nonsurgical. No serious study-related adverse events were reported by the time of this analysis. These results provide insights into performance and safety of the MCED test in an intended-use population. Randomized trials and longer follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of MCED tests. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05155605 . The interventional PATHFINDER 2 study provides insights on the safety and performance of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection test in an intended-use population, including more than 35,000 participants aged 50 years or older.
多种癌症早期检测试验的性能和安全性:PATHFINDER 2研究
早期发现癌症可提高生存率;然而,大多数癌症类型并没有指南推荐的筛查。我们之前报道了第一项PATHFINDER研究,该研究建立了基于血液的多癌早期检测(MCED)癌症筛查的可行性,该检测可以预测癌症信号起源(CSO),以指导诊断工作。这项前瞻性、干预性的PATHFINDER 2研究通过评估50岁或以上无癌症临床怀疑的参与者的MCED性能指标和安全性的共同主要终点,扩大了MCED测试的临床证据。性能指标包括癌症检出率、阳性和阴性预测值、事件敏感性、特异性和CSO预测准确性。在12个月的随访后,根据所进行的侵入性手术的数量和类型以及诊断测试引起的不良事件来评估安全性。终点进行描述性分析;未进行假设检验。在2021年12月至2024年7月期间,共有35878名参与者参加了这项研究。在32,007名可性能分析的参与者中,癌症检出率为0.54%(95%置信区间(CI): 0.47 ~ 0.63%),阳性预测值为60.3% (95% CI: 54.5 ~ 65.8%),阴性预测值为99.2% (95% CI: 99.1 ~ 99.3%),特异性为99.64% (95% CI: 99.57 ~ 99.70%)。发作敏感性为39.3% (95% CI: 34.9 - 44.0%;所有癌症)和69.8% (95% CI: 62.8 - 76.0%;预先指定的12种癌症亚组)。阳性似然比和阴性似然比分别为108.9 (95% CI: 87.6 - 135.2)和0.61 (95% CI: 0.56 - 0.66),检测出一种癌症所需的筛查数为185 (95% CI: 159 - 215)。CSO预测准确率为91.3%。在35,335名可安全分析的参与者中,213名(0.6%)在MCED检测阳性后接受了有创手术;90.5%为非手术治疗。截至本分析时,未报告严重的研究相关不良事件。这些结果为MCED测试在预期使用人群中的性能和安全性提供了见解。需要随机试验和更长时间的随访来评估MCED试验的临床应用。ClinicalTrials.gov识别码:NCT05155605。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nature Medicine
Nature Medicine 医学-生化与分子生物学
CiteScore
100.90
自引率
0.70%
发文量
525
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Nature Medicine is a monthly journal publishing original peer-reviewed research in all areas of medicine. The publication focuses on originality, timeliness, interdisciplinary interest, and the impact on improving human health. In addition to research articles, Nature Medicine also publishes commissioned content such as News, Reviews, and Perspectives. This content aims to provide context for the latest advances in translational and clinical research, reaching a wide audience of M.D. and Ph.D. readers. All editorial decisions for the journal are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Nature Medicine consider all types of clinical research, including: -Case-reports and small case series -Clinical trials, whether phase 1, 2, 3 or 4 -Observational studies -Meta-analyses -Biomarker studies -Public and global health studies Nature Medicine is also committed to facilitating communication between translational and clinical researchers. As such, we consider “hybrid” studies with preclinical and translational findings reported alongside data from clinical studies.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书