Cancer Control (Oct 2024)

Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study

  • Norah L. Crossnohere,
  • Nicola B. Campoamor,
  • Rosa Negash,
  • Marie Wood,
  • Jamie L. Studts,
  • Mohamed I. Elsaid,
  • Macarius Donneyong,
  • Electra D. Paskett,
  • Daniel E. Jonas,
  • Daniel G. Stover,
  • Chyke A. Doubeni,
  • John F. P. Bridges

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748241291609
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 31

Abstract

Read online

Background Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45–70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. Results Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve “cancer outcomes” by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). Conclusions Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.