A Quantitative Framework to Study Potential Benefits and Harms of Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing

An Exploratory Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of a Multi-cancer Early Detection Blood Test Compared with Standard of Care Screening in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Determining whether multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are cost effective is important in deciding whether they should be included in the clinical path of cancer care, especially for cancers where screening tools do not exist.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study is to determine the cost effectiveness of including a MCED screening regimen together with existing provincial screening protocols for selected cancers that are prevalent in Ontario, Canada, among average risk persons aged 50-75 years. The selected cancers include breast, colorectal, lung, esophageal, liver, pancreatic, stomach, and ovarian.

METHODS

Cost effectiveness was estimated from a provincial Ministry of Health perspective. A state-transition Markov model representing the decision path of both the proposed and existing screening strategies along the natural history of the selected types of cancers was implemented. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using data from available literature and the guidelines published by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis, which included a discount rate of 1.5% applied to all costs and outcomes. Costs were also converted to 2022 Canadian dollars. To test the robustness of the model, both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

MCED screening resulted in more diagnosed cases of each type of cancer, even at an earlier stage of disease. This was also associated with fewer related deaths compared with standard of care. Notwithstanding, the analysis revealed that the MCED intervention was not cost effective [ICER: CAD$143,369 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)], given a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed that the MCED intervention strategy was preferred to standard of care no more than 2% of the time at this WTP for both males and females. The model was most sensitive to the cost of MCED screening, and the levels of specificity of the MCED and colorectal cancer screening tests.

CONCLUSION

The main contribution of the study is to present and execute a methodological approach that can be adopted to test the cost effectiveness of an MCED tool in the Canadian setting. The model is also sufficiently generic that it could be adapted to other jurisdictions, and with consideration for increasing the WTP threshold beyond the common $100,000 per QALY limit, given the life-threatening nature of cancer, to ensure that MCED interventions are cost-effective.

Shifting the Cancer Screening Paradigm: The Rising Potential of Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests

Cancer remains a leading cause of death worldwide, partly owing to late detection which entails limited and often ineffective therapeutic options. Most cancers lack validated screening procedures, and the ones available disclose several drawbacks, leading to low patient compliance and unnecessary workups, adding up the costs to healthcare systems. Hence, there is a great need for innovative, accurate, and minimally invasive tools for early cancer detection. In recent years, multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests emerged as a promising screening tool, combining molecular analysis of tumor-related markers present in body fluids with artificial intelligence to simultaneously detect a variety of cancers and further discriminate the underlying cancer type. Herein, we aim to provide a highlight of the variety of strategies currently under development concerning MCED, as well as the major factors which are preventing clinical implementation. Although MCED tests depict great potential for clinical application, large-scale clinical validation studies are still lacking.

Opportunities for Early Cancer Detection: The Rise of ctDNA Methylation-Based Pan-Cancer Screening Technologies

The efficiency of conventional screening programs to identify early-stage malignancies can be limited by the low number of cancers recommended for screening as well as the high cumulative false-positive rate, and associated iatrogenic burden, resulting from repeated multimodal testing. The opportunity to use minimally invasive liquid biopsy testing to screen asymptomatic individuals at-risk for multiple cancers simultaneously could benefit from the aggregated diseases prevalence and a fixed specificity. Increasing both latter parameters is paramount to mediate high positive predictive value—a useful metric to evaluate a screening test accuracy and its potential harm-benefit. Thus, the use of a single test for multi-cancer early detection (stMCED) has emerged as an appealing strategy for increasing early cancer detection rate efficiency and benefit population health. A recent flurry of these stMCED technologies have been reported for clinical potential; however, their development is facing unique challenges to effectively improve clinical cost–benefit. One promising avenue is the analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) for detecting DNA methylation biomarker fingerprints of malignancies—a hallmark of disease aetiology and progression holding the potential to be tissue- and cancer-type specific. Utilizing panels of epigenetic biomarkers could potentially help to detect earlier stages of malignancies as well as identify a tumour of origin from blood testing, useful information for follow-up clinical decision making and subsequent patient care improvement. Overall, this review collates the latest and most promising stMCED methodologies, summarizes their clinical performances, and discusses the specific requirements multi-cancer tests should meet to be successfully implemented into screening guidelines.

Modeling Multicancer Screening

Jiao and colleagues have developed an estimation framework for measuring the benefits of a multi-cancer screening test, notably in terms of cancer detection and deaths prevented. The approach is clear and attractive. Further developments are likely to include more flexible modeling of sensitivities and specificities.See related article by Jiao et al., p. 38.