Abstract
Multi-cancer early detection tests are emerging as a revolutionary technology for the early detection of dozens of cancers from a single blood sample, including cancers without proven screening methods. However, they also come with challenges, including false-positive and false-negative results. To help patients make informed decisions, patient education materials are crucial. A review of available materials reveals that, while some materials provide understandable and actionable information, most lack a balanced presentation of the current benefits and risks of multi-cancer early detection testing. The dynamic nature of this field necessitates continuous updates to educational materials, incorporating current evidence and uncertainties.
Tweetable abstract
Multi-cancer early detection tests hold promise for cancer screening. Patient education materials need to present balanced information for informed decision-making, writes @jasonvassy. #MCED
Multi-cancer early detection: the promise & pitfalls
Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests detect unique signals for up to 50 types of cancer from a single blood sample using ctDNA and tumor proteins, aiding early detection.
MCED tests can detect cancers without proven screening strategies, potentially identifying these cancers before they become more advanced.
MCED tests can lead to false positive and false negative results and are not yet approved by the US FDA or covered by most health insurers.
The landscape of patient educational materials
Patient education on MCED testing is essential for informed decision-making.
Our evaluation of existing educational materials shows varying understandability and actionability of the information.
Materials often present the risks and benefits of MCED testing in an unbalanced way, biasing the reader toward testing.
Future perspective: toward improved patient understanding
Patient educational materials should acknowledge and frequently update their information about the evolving evidence of benefits and risks and the dynamic commercial and regulatory landscape of MCED testing.
Financial disclosure
MP Greene was supported by Summer Fellowship Funding from the Furman University Institute for the Advancement of Community Health. JL Vassy is supported by the National Institutes of Health (R35HG010706) and VA grants I01HX003627 and I01CX002635. The funders had no role in the scoping review. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.
Competing interests disclosure
The authors have no competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization or entity with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Writing disclosure
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.
Acknowledgments
JL Vassy is an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); the views expressed in this manuscript do not reflect those of the VA or the US government.