Public Perspectives on Emerging Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Tests: A Qualitative Study
Author(s)
Crossnohere N1, Campoamor N1, Negash R1, Wood M2, Studts J3, Jonas D1, Elsaid M1, Donneyong M4, Bridges JFP5
1The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 2University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA, 3University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA, 4Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA, 5The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: The emergence of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests has the potential to transform cancer screening. MCEDs can identify up to 50 types of cancers before symptom onset through a single blood test. While studies focusing on the efficacy and effectiveness of MCED are underway, there is a paucity of research regarding public views on these tests. We sought to explore public perspectives on the use of MCEDs.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using one-on-one interviews with members of the public aged 45-70 recruited through a national survey panel. After viewing a brief educational video about MCEDs, semi-structured interview approaches explored sentiments about MCEDs and considerations for integrating MCEDs into clinical care and overseeing/regulating MCEDs. Data were analyzed using content analysis with a deductive coding approach.
RESULTS: We conducted 20 interviews with members of the public who averaged 64 years of age (SD=6.4). Half were Black, Indigenous, or other people of color, 20% were male, and 25% had a history of cancer. Participants universally liked the principle of MCEDs and valued their convenience and ability to improve early detection for many cancers (100%). Participants identified future applications for MCEDs, including developing precision-MCEDs looking for cancers based on individual susceptibility (40%) and using MCEDs for cancer monitoring and therapy selection (10%). Participants were receptive to using MCEDs in clinical care if providers disclosed that MCEDs are a new technology without long-term efficacy data. Participants expressed concern with the high out-of-pocket cost ($1,000), deemed personally prohibitive (100%) and unethical (10%), and with perceived inconsistencies in oversight/regulation as compared to other cancer screenings (90%).
CONCLUSIONS: Members of the public supported using MCEDs in clinical care, even amidst still-emerging evidence of their effectiveness. Reducing costs and improving transparency in regulatory oversight would alleviate the few remaining hesitations surrounding their use.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 6, S1 (June 2024)
Code
MT18
Topic
Medical Technologies, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Diagnostics & Imaging, Stated Preference & Patient Satisfaction
Disease
Medical Devices, Oncology