Suppr超能文献

评估在标准护理筛查中增加多项单一癌症检测或一项多癌症检测所产生的假阳性负担和实施成本。

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.

作者信息

Madhavan Sarina, Hackshaw Allan, Hubbell Earl, Chang Ellen T, Kansal Anuraag, Clarke Christina A

机构信息

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

GRAIL, Inc., Menlo Park, California, USA.

出版信息

Cancer Med. 2025 Mar;14(6):e70776. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70776.

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.

摘要

背景

基于血液的检测通过两种不同方法为加强癌症筛查提供了一种有前景的策略。在“一种检测针对一种癌症”的传统模式中,单癌早期检测(SCED)对个体癌症具有高真阳性率(TPR),但假阳性率(FPR)也高。而多癌早期检测(MCED)检测则以低FPR同时针对多种癌症,提供了一种新的“一种检测针对多种癌症”方法。然而,比较这两种方法本质上并不直观。我们开发了一个框架,用于在一般人群层面评估和比较这两种基于血液的筛查方法的效率及下游成本。

方法

我们开发了两个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”系统有10种假设的SCED检测,每种针对一种癌症类型;“MCED - 10”系统包括一种针对相同10种癌症类型的单一假设MCED检测。当将其添加到针对100,000名50 - 79岁美国成年人的现有USPSTF推荐的癌症筛查中时,我们估计了每个系统在1年中检测到的癌症数量、累积假阳性以及阳性结果强制检测的相关成本。

结果

与MCED - 10相比,SCED - 10检测到的癌症多1.4倍(412例对298例),但在无癌人群中的诊断性检查多188倍(93,289例对497例),效率更低(阳性预测值:0.44%对38%;需筛查人数:2062对334),成本高3.4倍(3.29亿美元对9800万美元),且每年一轮筛查的累积假阳性负担高150倍(18例对0.12例)。

结论

与单一的MCED检测相比,使用多种SCED检测的平均风险个体筛查系统假阳性率和相关成本更高。一组与标准护理筛查具有相同灵敏度的SCED检测,检测到的癌症仅比限于相同癌症组的MCED检测略多一点。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/dff6/11912434/71ee99e3e094/CAM4-14-e70776-g004.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验