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
835P - Genetic, epigenetic, and clinical significance of Wilms’ tumor 1 (WT1) gene in acute myeloid leukemia
Presenter: Harsh Goel
Session: Poster session 09
Resources:
Abstract
836P - A prospective study to evaluate the prognostic implications and molecular mechanism of SLC40A1 gene in primary acute myeloid leukemia
Presenter: Harsh Goel
Session: Poster session 09
Resources:
Abstract
837P - Expression analysis, clinical significance and potential function of ALOX5AP in acute myeloid leukemia
Presenter: Harsh Goel
Session: Poster session 09
Resources:
Abstract
838P - Bayesian modeling in the survival analysis of patients with multiple myeloma with emphasis on missing data analysis
Presenter: Nelson Cruz Gutierrez
Session: Poster session 09
839P - Preliminary results from a phase II study of amulirafusp alfa (IMM0306) in patients with relapsed or refractory CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Presenter: jianliang yang
Session: Poster session 09
840P - Orelabrutinib-based regimens in chronic lymphocytic leukemia with comorbidities: A real-world study
Presenter: Xun Lai
Session: Poster session 09
841P - Transforming the landscape of pediatric AML treatment: A cutting-edge SCT prognostic model
Presenter: Hua Yang
Session: Poster session 09
Resources:
Abstract
842P - Exploring the association of side-effects with depression in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia who have received treatment: An analysis of the lymphoma coalition’s 2022 global patient survey
Presenter: Natacha Bolanos Fernandez
Session: Poster session 09
843P - Challenges and insights in treating Langerhans cell histiocytosis: Persistent mutations and novel therapeutic approaches
Presenter: Marzieh NASHVI
Session: Poster session 09
844TiP - Orelabrutinib combined with rituximab for the treatment of elderly patients with newly diagnosed non-GCB diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) under the guidance of genetic subtype: A prospective, multicenter, single-arm, response-adaptive clinical study (Origin)
Presenter: Wanzhuo Xie
Session: Poster session 09