4.4 Editorial Material

Multicancer Early Detection: Learning From the Past to Meet the Future

Journal

JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
Volume 114, Issue 3, Pages 349-352

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab168

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Rosalie and Harold Rea Brown Endowed Chair
  2. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R50 CA221836]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the potential impact of multicancer early detection tests and highlights three key factors that influence the balance of benefits and harms in early detection testing, namely the ability to confirm cancer signals, population testing strategies, and the natural history of targeted cancers. It emphasizes the critical gaps in current knowledge that hinder accurate predictions of the clinical impact of MCED testing.
Multicancer early detection (MCED) tests may soon be available to screen for many cancers using a single blood test, yet little is known about these tests beyond their diagnostic performance. Taking lessons from the history of cancer early detection, we highlight 3 factors that influence how performance of early detection tests translates into benefit and benefit-harm trade-offs: the ability to readily confirm a cancer signal, the population testing strategy, and the natural histories of the targeted cancers. We explain why critical gaps in our current knowledge about each factor prevent reliably projecting the expected clinical impact of MCED testing at this point in time. Our goal is to communicate how much uncertainty there is about the possible effects of MCED tests on population health so that patients, providers, regulatory agencies, and the public are well informed about what is reasonable to expect from this potentially important technological advance. We also urge the community to invest in a coordinated effort to collect data on MCED test dissemination and outcomes so that these can be tracked and studied while the tests are rigorously evaluated for benefit, harm, and cost.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available