Abstract:According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and is responsible for more than 10 million deaths each year [1]. Most deaths are due to lung cancer (about 18.0 % of all cancer deaths), followed by colorectal cancer (9.2 %), liver cancer (8.3 %) and stomach cancer (7.7 %). Two other important aspects of cancer biology are that almost half of all cancer deaths are potentially preventable [2], and that therapeutic opportunities are greater and survival better when cancer is detected at an early stage [3]. These straightforward concepts lead to the obvious conclusion that cost-effective screening is the best strategy in humanity's ongoing battle against cancer. There are already a number of examples of established population screening programs that have been implemented, such as mammography (for breast cancer), cytology and HPV (for cervical cancer), fecal occult blood testing (for colorectal cancer), while others have been implemented in different countries with varying degrees of success (e.g., PSA for prostate cancer, HCV for liver cancer). The so-called multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test has been recently proposed as an innovative and potentially ground-breaking strategy for screening a wide range of cancers. GRAIL, one of the diagnostics companies that has invested more in this direction, is now marketing a test (called Galleri) that is designed to "detect cancer signals and predict where in the body the cancer signal is located" [4]. As can be read on the company's website, it also states: "The Galleri test has not been cleared or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration". According to the company, the current version of the test can detect a signal of over 50 (51 to be precise) cancers, by evaluating DNA fragments (especially circulating cell-free DNA [cfDNA]) in the bloodstream and complementing these measurements with a machine learning algorithm designed to distinguishing between healthy or cancer cell origin. The first results of the practical application of MCED by Galleri were recently published in the Lancet [5]. In this prospective cohort study, 6,662 participants were initially recruited, of whom 6,621 were eventually included in the statistical analysis. The cumulative detection rate of cancer was 1.38 % (92/6,662), while no cancer signal was detected in the remaining part of the population. The cumulative performance of the assay, as summarized in Table 1, was derived from the data reported in the article, i.e., 35 true positive cases, 57 false positive cases, 6,235 true negative cases, 86 false negative cases (208 cases did not reach the end of the study). Despite remarkably high accuracy (up to 97.8 %) and specificity (99.1 %), this test has low sensitivity (28.9 %) and a corresponding negative likelihood ratio LR − of 0.72. This means that this test is neither theoretically able to absolutely rule out the presence of cancer, since then the LR − should be less than 0.1, nor is it able to always detect cancer (signals) early due to the low sensitivity (28.9 %) [6]. Clinical performance of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) for early detection of over 50 types of cancer in asymptomatic subjects as calculated from reference [5]. A recent opinion paper published in the journal by Chatanaka and colleagues [7], expresses a series of practical, clinical and economical considerations about the test and the first available results. These comments, which are not necessarily shared by the members of the Editorial Board of the journal, criticize unsatisfactory clinical performance, emphasize the interim review of the British National Health Service (NHS)-Galleri trial which led to postponement of the planned large-scale pilot program in NHS clinical practice until final results of the trial become available, and calculate the balance between cost and effectiveness, concluding that implementation of this test for the entire lifetime of US residents would generate a cost that "is approx. eight times higher than the budget of the US Government". A paper published in the British Medical Journal reported serious concerns raised by some scientists, including Mike Richards, the chair of the independent UK National Screening Committee, who highlighted the current lack of evidence "on whether the benefits of testing outweigh any potential harms and at reasonable cost." [8] In addition, another paper published in New England Journal of Medicine reported other concerns on the introduction of this test in clinical practice "without evidence that such tests can reduce cancer-related mortality – preferably evidence derived from trials in which commercial entities don't influence final decisions regarding design or conduct and aren't involved in data management or analysis" [9]. While there is certainly an unmet medical need for a comprehensive MCED test, only further -Abstract Truncated-

Understanding the Landscape of Multi-Cancer Detection Tests: The Current Data and Clinical Considerations

Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review

Blood-based multi-cancer detection: A state-of-the-art update

A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test: clinical update for GPs

Multi-cancer early detection: searching for evidence

Shifting the Cancer Screening Paradigm: Developing a Multi-Biomarker Class Approach to Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing

Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A State-of-the-Art Review for Otolaryngologists

Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study

Is a ‘cancer check-up’ near for high-risk adults? clinician attitudes and perspectives on multicancer early detection tests.

Multi-year clinical outcomes of cancers diagnosed following detection by a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test

Long-term clinical outcomes of cancers diagnosed following detection by a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test.

Clinical performance and utility: A microsimulation model to inform the design of screening trials for a multi-cancer early detection test

Perspectives on clinical adoption barriers to blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests across stakeholders.

Pre-malignant conditions diagnosed following a positive cancer signal from a multi-cancer early detection test

Helping patients understand multi-cancer early detection tests: a scoping review

The detection of multiple cancer types with an extended set of methylation and protein markers.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test performance in cancer survivors.

Abstract LB100: Performance of a multi-analyte, multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood test in a prospectively-collected cohort

Prediagnostic evaluation of multicancer detection tests: Design and analysis considerations

Effect of multi-cancer early detection screening on late-stage cancers: A modeling study.

Abstract 783: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy and applicability of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) in the general population