Abstract 1183P
Background
Participant perceptions of cancer screening reportedly vary by their degree of cancer risk and can impact future screening adherence. This may also be affected by MCED testing. Participants in the PATHFINDER study of MCED test implementation were asked about their intentions to participate in future cancer screening.
Methods
PATHFINDER enrolled adults ≥50 yrs into cohorts without or with additional cancer risk. Additional cancer risk participants had ≥1 factor: ≥100 cigarette smoking history, germline/hereditary cancer risk, prior cancer ≥3 yrs before enrollment. Participants were notified if the MCED test did or did not detect a cancer signal. PROs assessed after MCED test results disclosure are reported here. Adapted Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) assessed impact of MCED test result disclosure. Short Form 12-Item Health Survey (SF-12v2) Mental Component Summary assessed mental health. Single-item questions measured likely adherence to cancer screening and future MCED tests. Descriptive statistics were generated for PRO endpoints.
Results
In 6621 participants, median age = 63 yrs, Female = 64%, White = 92%. 92/6621 (1.4%) had a cancer signal detected (CSD), 6529/6621 (98.6%) had no cancer signal detected (NCSD). PRO responses at results disclosure for MICRA and SF-12v2 are in the table. Table: 1183P
CSD n mean (SD) | NCSD n mean (SD) | |||||
Scale (range) | Addl risk | No addl risk | Total | Addl risk | No addl risk | Total |
MICRA distress (0–30) | 32 7.8 (7.6) | 18 7.3 (5.5) | 50 7.6 (6.9) | 3243 0.8 (2.1) | 2621 0.5 (1.4) | 5864 0.6 (1.8) |
MICRA uncertainty (0–45) | 32 10.9 (7.9) | 18 11.9 (6.6) | 50 11.3 (7.4) | 3244 3.7 (4.5) | 2621 2.6 (3.7) | 5865 3.2 (4.2) |
SF-12v2 mental component score (11.3–68.2) | 52 55.0 (6.3) | 36 52.4 (6.9) | 88 53.9 (6.6) | 3512 53.2 (7.4) | 2835 53.5 (6.8) | 6347 53.3 (7.1) |
SD, standard deviation. Higher scores indicate greater distress/uncertainty in MICRA and better health in SF-12v2. MICRA: Distress/uncertainty scores of 6/8 = “rarely” experiencing negative emotion; scores of 18/24 = “sometimes” experiencing negative emotion.Individual question results were: - How likely are you to follow cancer screening recommendations? 96% were Very/Likely - How likely are you to undergo a subsequent MCED test? 96% were Very/Likely
Conclusions
No notable differences in PROs were reported between cancer risk cohorts by signal detection status. Overall, participants reported low impact on levels of distress and uncertainty, although an increased impact was noted in participants with CSD compared to NCSD. Most participants undergoing MCED testing indicated they would continue to participate in routine cancer screening and be willing to undergo MCED testing again.
Clinical trial identification
NCT04241796.
Editorial acknowledgement
Writing and editorial assistance was provided by Neva C West, PhD (NeuroWest Solutions, Chicago, IL, USA).
Legal entity responsible for the study
Grail, Llc.
Funding
Grail, Llc.
Disclosure
C.A. Dilaveri: Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Funding: Grail Llc. E.A. Klein: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Grail Llc. K.C. Chung: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Grail Llc; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks or ownership: Illumina, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead, Baxter, Bayer. M. Lopatin, E.T. Fung: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Grail Llc; Financial Interests, Personal, Stocks or ownership: Illumina. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
212P - BRGSF-HIS mice as a predictive tool for safety assessment of biologics
Presenter: Kader Thiam
Session: Poster session 09
213P - Constructing a high-definition patient-digital twin (PDT) in treatment-naïve women with advanced cancer
Presenter: Leonardo Garma
Session: Poster session 09
215P - Detection of MUTYH for the prognosis and chemotherapy responsiveness of patients with non-small cell lung cancer
Presenter: Chi Wai Wong
Session: Poster session 09
216P - β-catenin is a potential prognostic biomarker in uterine sarcoma
Presenter: Ying Cai
Session: Poster session 09
218P - Exploiting a unique glycosaminoglycan for novel pan-cancer therapies and diagnostics
Presenter: Mette Agerbæk
Session: Poster session 09
219P - The landscape and prognostic impact of germline HLA-A subtypes in patients with advanced solid cancers
Presenter: Kyrillus Shohdy
Session: Poster session 09
220P - The role of fucosyltransferase 1 (FUT1) in CRC as a putative prognostic and predictive biomarker
Presenter: Lorenz Pammer
Session: Poster session 09
221P - ANGPTL4's role in cancer: A meta analysis and bioinformatics exploration
Presenter: Osama Younis
Session: Poster session 09
222P - Artificial intelligence (AI) based prognostication from baseline computed tomography (CT) scans in a phase III advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) trial
Presenter: Omar Khan
Session: Poster session 09