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
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, Allan Hackshaw, Earl Hubbell, Ellen T. Chang, Anuraag Kansal, 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.
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.