Lexicon for blood-based early detection and screening: BLOODPAC consensus document.

In the United States, 2.0 million new cancer cases and around 600,000 cancer deaths are estimated to occur in 2024. Early detection gives cancer patients the best chance for treatment success. Currently, cancer screening in the general population is recommended for a limited set of cancers; as a result, most cancer types are not regularly screened. Thus, in recent years, we have seen a wave of novel, non-invasive, single- and multi-cancer detection tests (SCD and MCD), promising detection of cancer signals prior to the onset of symptoms and/or clinical diagnosis. To accelerate the development, access, and adoption of these tests, the Blood Profiling Atlas in Cancer (BLOODPAC) Consortium, a collaborative infrastructure for developing standards and best practices, established the Early Detection & Screening (ED&S) Working Group. The early detection space is in need of consensus around definitions for SCD and MCD tests that harmonize terminology across diverse stakeholders, thereby reducing communication barriers and ultimately advancing the discipline. To this end, the ED&S Working Group compiled a lexicon of terms, chosen based on perceived importance, frequency of use, lack of clarity, and unique challenges in the context of SCD and MCD tests. This lexicon was submitted to the FDA for their feedback, which was incorporated. In this work, we present the first installment of the lexicon, consisting of 14 primary terms, that will be part of an online dictionary and provide a foundation for future projects of BLOODPAC's ED&S Working Group.

Perspectives on Clinical Adoption Barriers to Blood-Based Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests across Stakeholders.

Current United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations include routine screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer; however, two out of every three cancer cases occur in other indications, leading to diagnoses in advanced stages of the disease and a higher likelihood of mortality. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can impact cancer screening and early detection by monitoring for multiple different cancer types at once, including indications where screening is not performed routinely today. We conducted a survey amongst healthcare providers (HCPs), payers, and patients within the U.S. health system to understand the current utilization of cancer screening tests and the anticipated barriers to widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests. The results indicated that the community favors the adoption of blood-based MCED tests and that there is broad agreement on the value proposition. Despite this recognition, the survey highlighted that there is limited use today due to the perceived lack of clinical accuracy and utility data, high out-of-pocket patient costs, and lack of payer coverage. To overcome the hurdles for future widespread adoption of blood-based MCED tests, increased investment in data generation, education, and implementation of logistical support for HCPs will be critical.

Optimizing molecular testing of lung cancer needle biopsy specimens: potential solutions from an interdisciplinary qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing can detect actionable genomic alterations and tumor cell surface proteins in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, utilization remains suboptimal, representing missed treatment opportunities. This study aimed to identify challenges and potential solutions to obtaining percutaneous lung needle biopsy specimens for successful molecular testing in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: This interdisciplinary qualitative study included ten radiologists and four pathologists from academic and community settings across the United States who routinely perform and analyze percutaneous lung needle biopsies. Participants underwent semi-structured one-on-one interviews (Phase 1). Interview questionnaires were constructed based on a literature review of key lines of inquiry and conducted by professional market researchers using the theoretical domains framework. Primary barriers to molecular testing were identified using thematic analysis. Subsequently, multidisciplinary focus groups were convened to identify potential solutions (Phase 2). RESULTS: Four themes emerged as barriers to molecular testing and were matched to the clinical workflow: (1) biopsy request, (2) biopsy procedure, (3) specimen analysis, and (4) communication. The nineteen potential solutions included adding a "checkbox" to indicate molecular testing in the biopsy request, leveraging pre-procedural imaging to guide biopsies, conserving tissue through appropriate allocation strategies and next generation sequencing panels instead of sequential single-gene assays, instituting reflex-molecular testing upon NSCLC diagnosis, tracking and communicating biopsy outcomes at multidisciplinary tumor boards, and improving integration of radiologists and pathologists into oncology care teams. CONCLUSIONS: Potential solutions exist to increase successful molecular testing of lung needle biopsy specimens in patients with advanced NSCLC.