Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 1;129(13):2056-2063.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.34747. Epub 2023 Mar 21.

Modeled residual current cancer risk after clinical investigation of a positive multicancer early detection test result

Andrew G Hudnut  1 , Earl Hubbell  2 , Oliver Venn  2 , Timothy R Church  3
Affiliations

Modeled residual current cancer risk after clinical investigation of a positive multicancer early detection test result

Andrew G Hudnut et al. Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Positive results of a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test require confirmatory diagnostic workup. Here, residual current cancer risk (RR) during the process of diagnostic resolution, including situations where the initial confirmatory test does not provide resolution, was modeled.

Methods: A decision-tree framework was used to model conditional risk in a patient's journey through confirmatory diagnostic options and outcomes. The diagnostic journey assumed that cancer signal detection (a positive MCED test result) had already led to a transition from screening to diagnosis and began with an initial positive predictive value (PPV) from the positive result. Evaluation of a most probable (top) predicted cancer signal origin (CSO) and then a second-most probable predicted CSO followed. Under the assumption that the top- and second-predicted CSOs were each followed by a targeted confirmatory test, the RR was estimated for each subsequent scenario.

Results: For an initial MCED test result with typical performance characteristics modeled (PPV, 40%; top-predicted CSO accuracy, 90%), after a negative initial confirmatory test (sensitivity, 70%, 90%, or 100%) the RR ranged from 6% to 20%. A second-predicted CSO (accuracy, 50%), after a negative second confirmatory test, still provided a significant RR (3%-18%) in comparison with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cancer risk threshold warranting investigation in symptomatic individuals (3%). With a 40% PPV for an MCED test and 90% specificity for a confirmatory test, the risk of incidental findings after one or two confirmatory tests was 6% and 12%, respectively.

Conclusions: These results may illustrate the impact of a positive MCED test on follow-up decision-making.

Keywords: cancer interception; computational methods; decision support techniques; early detection; precision medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. Elliss-Brookes L, McPhail S, Ives A, et al. Routes to diagnosis for cancer-determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer. 2012;107(8):1220-1226. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.408
    1. Douglas C, Carswell V, Montgomery J. Outcomes of urgent suspicion of head and neck cancer referrals in Glasgow. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2019;101(2):103-106. doi:10.1308/rcsann.2018.0168
    1. McCoubrey A, Warren C, McAllister I, Gilliland R. Is the “red flag” referral pathway effective in diagnosing colorectal carcinoma? Ulst Med J. 2012;81:127.
    1. Dow E, Freimund A, Smith K, et al. Cancer diagnoses following abnormal noninvasive prenatal testing: a case series, literature review, and proposed management model. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021;5:1001-1012. doi:10.1200/po.20.00429
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK). Suspected Cancer: Recognition and Referral. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015.

Publication types