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
1181P - Diagnostic target product profiles for cancer: A demand signaling tool to stimulate innovation in early cancer diagnosis
Presenter: Sonja Marjanovic
Session: Poster session 09
1182P - Determination of tumor PSMA expression in prostate cancer from blood using a novel epigenomic liquid biopsy platform
Presenter: Praful Ravi
Session: Poster session 09
1184P - Early real-world experience with positive multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test cases and negative initial diagnostic work-up
Presenter: Candace Westgate
Session: Poster session 09
1185P - Clinical applications of a novel blood-based fragmentomics assay for lung cancer detection
Presenter: Marc Siegel
Session: Poster session 09
1186P - SmartCS-LPLLM: Enhancing early cancer detection through ctDNA methylation analysis leveraging large language models
Presenter: Li Chao
Session: Poster session 09
1187P - Molecular diagnosis of lung cancer via ctDNA and ctRNA detection on bronchoscopic fluid specimens from 31 patients: A retrospective analysis
Presenter: Vincent Fallet
Session: Poster session 09
1188P - Modeled economic and clinical impact of a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test in a population with hereditary cancer syndromes
Presenter: Sana Raoof
Session: Poster session 09
1189P - Cancer genome interpreter: A data-driven tool for tumor mutation interpretation
Presenter: Santiago Demajo
Session: Poster session 09
1190P - Circulating tumor DNA from the tumor-draining pulmonary vein as a biomarker in resected non-small cell lung cancer
Presenter: Raphael Werner
Session: Poster session 09
1191P - Efficient lung cancer stage prediction and outcome informatics with Bayesian deep learning and MCMC method
Presenter: Maria Gkotzamanidou
Session: Poster session 09