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
825P - Ultra-sensitive cfDNA analysis for minimally invasive measurable residual disease detection and profiling in multiple myeloma
Presenter: Natalia Buenache
Session: Poster session 09
826P - Efficacy of non-doxorubicin based regimens in severely G6PD deficient patients with DLBCL
Presenter: Shruti Prem Sudha
Session: Poster session 09
827P - Comparison of efficacy and safety between glofitamab and real-world regimens among Chinese patients with 3L+ relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: An external control study
Presenter: Keshu Zhou
Session: Poster session 09
828P - Translocation 11;14 is not associated with adverse prognosis in the era of novel anti-myeloma therapeutics
Presenter: Ioannis Ntanasis-Stathopoulos
Session: Poster session 09
829P - Flumatinib combined with chemotherapy for newly diagnosed adult with Ph-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A single-center, retrospective observational study
Presenter: HAN SHUYU
Session: Poster session 09
830P - Prognostic model of pediatric AML patients with RUNX1-RUNX1T1 fusion gene
Presenter: Yang Xun
Session: Poster session 09
Resources:
Abstract
831P - Impact of chronic kidney disease on disease outcomes in hospitalized multiple myeloma patients: A National inpatient sample study from 2016 to 2020
Presenter: Marco Bermudez
Session: Poster session 09
Resources:
Abstract
832P - CLOMB: A validated scoring model to predict the relapse in the central nervous system of pediatric acute B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia
Presenter: Jiacheng Li
Session: Poster session 09
Resources:
Abstract
833P - Latest results of GVM±R regimen for the salvage therapy of patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Presenter: Wei Liu
Session: Poster session 09
834P - Treatment of DLBCL in HIV patient: Still a dilemma
Presenter: Devashish Desai
Session: Poster session 09