The half-painted picture: Reviewing the mental health impacts of cancer screening

Addressing positive multi-cancer early detection tests in head and neck Surgery: Experience with head and neck work up for high-risk referrals

OBJECTIVES

Blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are now commercially available. However, there are currently no consensus guidelines available for head and neck cancer (HNC) providers to direct work up or surveillance for patients with a positive MCED test. We seek to describe cases of patients with positive MCED tests suggesting HNC and provide insights for their evaluation.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients referred to Otolaryngology with an MCED result suggesting HNC. Patients enrolled in prospective MCED clinical trials were excluded. Cancer diagnoses were confirmed via frozen-section pathology.

RESULTS

Five patients were included (mean age: 69.2 years, range 50-87; 4 male) with MCED-identified-high-risk for HNC or lymphoma. Only patient was symptomatic. After physical exam and follow-up head and neck imaging, circulating tumor HPV DNA testing, two patients were diagnosed with p16 + oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas and underwent appropriate therapy. A third patient had no evidence of head and neck cancer but was diagnosed with sarcoma of the thigh. The remaining two patients had no evidence of malignancy after in-depth workup.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, 2 of 5 patients referred to Otolaryngology with a positive MCED result were diagnosed with HPV + oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. We recommend that positive HNC MCED work up include thorough head and neck examination with flexible laryngoscopy and focused CT or MRI imaging. Given the potential for inaccurate MCED tissue of origin classification, PET/CT may be useful in specific situations. For a patient with no cancer identified, development of clear guidelines is warranted.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests: prioritizing equity from bench to bedside

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are blood-based tests designed to screen for signals of multiple cancers. There is growing interest and investment in examining the potential benefits and applications of MCED tests. If MCED tests are shown to have clinical utility, it is important to ensure that all people-regardless of their demographic or socioeconomic background-equitably benefit from these tests. Unfortunately, with health care innovation, such considerations are often ignored until after inequities emerge. We urge for-profit companies, scientists, clinicians, payers, and government agencies to prioritize equity now-when MCEDs are still being developed and researched. In an effort to avoid creating and exacerbating cancer inequities, we propose 9 equity considerations for MCEDs.

Screening in Multiple Myeloma and Its Precursors: Are We There Yet?

BACKGROUND

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological malignancy that develops over years from the asymptomatic precursors, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, and smoldering multiple myeloma. Recent evidence shows that by initiating treatment at an asymptomatic stage, outcomes in MM can be significantly improved. However, a vast majority of MM patients are diagnosed after the development of symptomatic end-organ damage and cannot reap the benefits of early treatment. The precursors of MM are easily detected by serum protein electrophoresis and free light chain assay of the serum, raising the question of whether population-based screening could detect MM at an asymptomatic stage and significantly expand the availability of early treatment in MM. Screening is a hallmark of care in many malignancies, and there are accepted criteria for when screening is appropriate.

CONTENT

Here we review the available relevant evidence for the introduction of screening and discuss whether screening for MM and its precursors fulfills these criteria. We also highlight gaps in our current knowledge, most notably a lack of data on the benefits and harms of screening and the lack of a defined target population. There are ongoing studies that may fill these critical gaps in the literature, but their results are still pending.

SUMMARY

Screening could lead to a paradigm shift in the care of patients with MM, but critical scientific questions need to be answered before screening of healthy individuals can be recommended. In short, we should not screen for MM and its precursors-yet.