» Articles » PMID: 35844011

Patient Preferences for Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Tests

Overview
Journal Patient
Specialty Health Services
Date 2022 Jul 17
PMID 35844011
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Emerging blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can detect a variety of cancer types across stages with a range of sensitivity, specificity, and ability to predict the origin of the cancer signal. However, little is known about the general US population's preferences for MCED tests.

Objective: To quantify preferences for MCED tests among US adults aged 50-80 years using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).

Methods: To quantify preferences for attributes of blood-based MCED tests, an online DCE was conducted with five attributes (true positives, false negatives, false positives, likelihood of the cancer type unknown, number of cancer types detected), among the US population aged 50-80 years recruited via online panels and social media. Data were analyzed using latent class multinomial logit models and relative attribute importance was obtained.

Results: Participants (N = 1700) were 54% female, mean age 63.3 years. Latent class modeling identified three classes with distinct preferences for MCED tests. The rank order of attribute importance based on relative attribute importance varied by latent class, but across all latent classes, participants preferred higher accuracy (fewer false negatives and false positives, more true positives) and screenings that detected more cancer types and had a lower likelihood of cancer type unknown. Overall, 72% of participants preferred to receive an MCED test in addition to currently recommended cancer screenings.

Conclusions: While there is significant heterogeneity in cancer screening preferences, the majority of participants preferred MCED screening and the accuracy of these tests is important. While the majority of participants preferred adding an MCED test to complement current cancer screenings, the latent class analyses identified a small (16%) and specific subset of individuals who value attributes differently, with particular concern regarding false-negative and false-positive test results, who are significantly less likely to opt-in.

Citing Articles

Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests: State of the Art and Implications for Radiologists.

Kang S, Gulati R, Moise N, Hur C, Elkin E Radiology. 2025; 314(1):e233448.

PMID: 39807974 PMC: 11783158. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.233448.


Transforming cancer screening: the potential of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technologies.

Imai M, Nakamura Y, Yoshino T Int J Clin Oncol. 2025; 30(2):180-193.

PMID: 39799530 PMC: 11785667. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-025-02694-5.


Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests (MCEDs) as a Potential Approach to Address Current Gaps in Cancer Screening.

Carbonell C, Hutchinson J, Hilsden R, Yang H, Brenner D Cancer Control. 2024; 31:10732748241307360.

PMID: 39637415 PMC: 11622387. DOI: 10.1177/10732748241307360.


Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.

Samimi G, Temkin S, Weil C, Han P, LeeVan E, Rubinstein W Cancer Med. 2024; 13(21):e70281.

PMID: 39475101 PMC: 11523003. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.70281.


Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A State-of-the-Art Review for Otolaryngologists.

Kennedy E, Durm G, Farlow J OTO Open. 2024; 8(4):e70040.

PMID: 39463807 PMC: 11512445. DOI: 10.1002/oto2.70040.


References
1.
Kistler C, Hess T, Howard K, Pignone M, Crutchfield T, Hawley S . Older adults' preferences for colorectal cancer-screening test attributes and test choice. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015; 9:1005-16. PMC: 4508065. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S82203. View

2.
Lancsar E, Louviere J . Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?. Health Econ. 2006; 15(8):797-811. DOI: 10.1002/hec.1104. View

3.
Reed Johnson F, Yang J, Reed S . The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments. Value Health. 2019; 22(2):157-160. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.876. View

4.
Fransen M, van Schaik T, Twickler T, Essink-Bot M . Applicability of internationally available health literacy measures in the Netherlands. J Health Commun. 2011; 16 Suppl 3:134-49. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2011.604383. View

5.
Liu M, Oxnard G, Klein E, Swanton C, Seiden M . Sensitive and specific multi-cancer detection and localization using methylation signatures in cell-free DNA. Ann Oncol. 2021; 31(6):745-759. PMC: 8274402. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.011. View