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 3.1 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":3.1000,"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

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
估计假阳性负担和在标准护理筛查中增加多个单一癌症检测或单个多癌症检测的实施成本
基于血液的检测通过两种不同的方法提供了一种有希望的策略来加强癌症筛查。在“一种癌症一种检测”的传统模式中,单一癌症早期检测(SCED)对单个癌症的检测具有高真阳性率(TPR)和高假阳性率(FPR)的特点。而多癌早期检测(MCED)方法以一个低FPR同时针对多种癌症,提供了一种新的“一种检测多种癌症”的方法。然而,比较这两种方法本质上是不直观的。我们开发了一个框架来评估和比较这两种基于血液的筛查方法在普通人群水平上的效率和下游成本。方法我们开发了两种假设的筛查系统来评估每种基于血液的筛查方法的性能效率。“SCED-10”系统包含10个假设的SCED测试,每个测试针对一种癌症类型;“MCED-10”系统包括针对相同10种癌症类型的单一假设MCED测试。在现有的uspstf推荐的10万名50-79岁美国成年人的癌症筛查中,我们估计了每个系统在1年内检测到的癌症数量、累计假阳性以及为阳性结果进行义务检测的相关成本。结果与MCED-10相比,SCED-10检测出的肿瘤多1.4倍(412比298),但对无癌人群的诊断调查多188倍(93,289比497),效率较低(阳性预测值:0.44%比38%;需要筛查的人数:2062人对334人),3.4倍的成本(3.29亿美元对9800万美元),每年一轮筛查的假阳性累积负担增加150倍(18人对0.12人)。结论:与单一MCED检测相比,使用多个SCED检测的平均风险个体筛查系统具有更高的假阳性率和相关费用。一组与标准护理筛查具有相同灵敏度的SCED测试仅比仅限于同一组癌症的MCED测试检测出更多的癌症。
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 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
The Mediating Effect of Socioeconomic Status and Persistent Poverty on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pediatric Cancer Mortality in the United States. Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Stereotactic Radiotherapy for Spinal Metastases With Epidural Spinal Cord Compression Grades 1-2. Identification and Validation of cGAS-STING Pathway-Associated Predictive and Therapeutic Models for Esophageal Squamous Cell Cancer Patients via Artificial Intelligence and Multi-Omics. Palliative Care Admission at End-of-Life in Liver Cancer: A 10 Year Population-Based Study of 3565 Deaths in Australia. Hospitalist Care for Unplanned Oncology Admissions: A Mixed-Method Analysis of Oncology and General Hospitalist Outcomes and Processes.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1