Validity and timeliness of cancer diagnosis data collected during a prospective cohort study and reported by the English and Welsh cancer registries: a retrospective, comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer places a high burden on society and health-care systems. Cancer research requires high-quality data, which is resource-intensive to obtain. Using administrative datasets such as cancer registries could improve the efficiency of cancer studies if data were valid and timely. We aimed to compare the validity and timeliness of diagnostic cancer data on-site during the SYMPLIFY study to that obtained from the cancer registries of England and Wales. METHODS: Cancer data were collected from 5461 participants across 44 hospital sites during a prospective observational study in England and Wales, SYMPLIFY (ISRCTN10226380). Linked cancer data were obtained from Digital Health and Care Wales (DHCW), the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit (WCISU), and the English National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD) and Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset (RCRD), regularly between April, 2022, and September, 2023. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the validity (via assessment of the proportion of completed data fields and concordance with SYMPLIFY sites), and timeliness of the data in all datasets, for all cancers diagnosed within 9 months of study enrolment. Data fields investigated were cancer site via International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code; cancer morphology via International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3) morphology histology code and broad morphological grouping; overall stage; and TNM classification. FINDINGS: For data collected between April, 2022, and September, 2023, completeness at the last data cut available for each dataset ranged from 84% to 100% for ICD-O-3 morphology, from 43% to 100% for overall stage, and from 74% to 83% for TNM stage. The concordance between SYMPLIFY data and NCRD was 96% (95% CI 92-98) for ICD-10, 60% (53-66) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 83% (78-88) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, 73% (67-78) for stage, and 51% (44-59) for TNM; and with WCISU was 89% (95% CI 81-94) for ICD-10, 63% (53-73) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 80% (70-87) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, 83% (74-90) for overall stage, and 49% (38-61) for TNM stage. Concordance between SYMPLIFY and RCRD was 95% (95% CI 92-98) for ICD-10, 67% (60-74) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 85% (79-90) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, and 73% (65-80) for overall stage; and between SYMPLIFY and DHCW was 96% (91-99) for ICD-10, 74% (64-83) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 84% (75-91) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, and 87% (74-95) for stage. The SYMPLIFY dataset reached completion at 12 months post-enrolment in November, 2022, compared with 13 months for NCRD in December, 2023. RCRD and DHCW reached completion at 13 months and 15 months post-enrolment, in December, 2022, and February, 2023, respectively. INTERPRETATION: We report similar completeness of data fields, concordance, and timeliness between on-site and centrally collected cancer outcomes data. Our findings suggest that central registry data can help alleviate the resource burden in clinical trials and improve cancer research. Cancer registries might need additional resources to provide data for registry-based trials at scale. FUNDING: GRAIL Bio UK.

Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites. FINDINGS: 6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer. INTERPRETATION: This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms. FUNDING: GRAIL Bio UK.

Performance of a targeted methylation-based multi-cancer early detection test by race and ethnicity.

Disparities in cancer screening and outcomes based on factors such as sex, socioeconomic status, and race and ethnicity in the United States are well documented. A blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that detects a shared cancer signal across multiple cancer types and also predicts the cancer signal origin was developed and validated in the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas study (CCGA; NCT02889978). CCGA is a prospective, multicenter, case-control, observational study with longitudinal follow-up (overall N = 15,254). In this pre-specified, exploratory, descriptive analysis, test performance was evaluated among racial and ethnic groups. Overall, 4077 participants comprised the independent validation set with confirmed cancer status (cancer: n = 2823; non-cancer: n = 1254). Participants were stratified into the following racial/ethnic groups: Black (non-Hispanic), Hispanic (all races), Other (non-Hispanic), Other/unknown and White (non-Hispanic). Cancer and non-cancer participants were predominantly White (n = 2316, 82.0% and n = 996, 79.4%, respectively). Across groups, specificity for cancer signal detection ranged from 98.1% [n = 103; 95% CI: 93.2-99.5%] to 100% [n = 85; 95% CI: 95.7-100.0%]. The sensitivity for cancer signal detection across groups ranged from 43.9% [n = 57; 95% CI: 31.8-56.7%] to 63.0% [n = 192; 95% CI: 56.0-69.5%] and generally increased with clinical stage. The MCED test had consistently high specificity and similar sensitivity across racial and ethnic groups, though results are limited by sample size for some groups. Results support the broad applicability of this MCED test and clinical implementation on a population scale as a complement to standard screening.

Nonspecific Signs and/or Symptoms of Cancer: A Retrospective, Observational Analysis from a Secondary Care, US Community Oncology Dataset.

To help determine the unmet need for improved diagnostic tools to evaluate patients with nonspecific signs and/or symptoms (NSSS) and suspicion of cancer, we examined patient characteristics, diagnostic journey, and cancer incidence of patients with NSSS within The US Oncology Network (The Network), a secondary care community oncology setting. This retrospective, observational cohort study included patients aged ≥40 years with ≥1 NSSS in their problem list at their first visit within The Network (the index date) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020. Patients were followed longitudinally with electronic health record data for initial cancer diagnosis, new noncancer diagnosis, death, end of study observation period, or 12 months, whichever occurred first. Of 103,984 patients eligible for inclusion, 96,722 presented with only 1 NSSS at index date; 6537/103,984 (6.3%) were diagnosed with 1 primary cancer within 12 months after the index date; 3825/6537 (58.5%) with hematologic malignancy, and 2712/6537 (41.5%) with solid tumor. Among patients diagnosed with cancer (n = 6774), the median time to cancer diagnosis after their first visit within The Network was 5.13 weeks. This study provides a real-world perspective on cancer incidence in patients with NSSS referred to a secondary care setting and highlights the unmet need for improved diagnostic tools to improve cancer outcomes.

Performance of a Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-cancer Detection Test in Individuals Presenting With Symptoms Suspicious for Cancers.

PURPOSE: A multi-cancer detection test using a targeted methylation assay and machine learning classifiers was validated and optimized for screening in prospective, case-controlled Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02889978) substudy 3. Here, we report test performance in a subgroup of participants with symptoms suspicious for cancer to assess the test's ability to potentially facilitate efficient diagnostic evaluation in symptomatic individuals. METHODS: We evaluated test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cancer signal origin [CSO] prediction accuracy) in participants with clinically presenting cancers (CPCs) and noncancer with underlying medical conditions and among two subgroups (65 years and older and GI cancers). Overall survival (OS) of participants who had a cancer signal detected/not detected was compared with SEER-based expected survival. RESULTS: A total of 2,036 cancer and 1,472 noncancer participants were included. Specificity was high in all noncancer participants (99.5% [95% CI, 98.4 to 99.8]). In participants with CPCs, the overall sensitivity was 64.3% (95% CI, 62.2 to 66.4) and the overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 90.3%. For GI cancers, the overall sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI, 80.6 to 87.1). In participants 65 years and older, test performance was similar to that of all participants. Individuals with cancers not detected had a significantly better OS than that expected from SEER (P < .01). CONCLUSION: This test detected a cancer signal with high specificity and CSO prediction accuracy and moderate sensitivity in symptomatic individuals, with especially high performance in participants with GI cancers. The survival analysis implied that the cancers not detected were less clinically aggressive than cancers detected by the test, providing prognostic insights to physicians. This multi-cancer detection test could facilitate efficient workup and stratify cancer risk in symptomatic individuals.

Evaluation of cell-free DNA approaches for multi-cancer early detection.

In the Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (NCT02889978) substudy 1, we evaluate several approaches for a circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test by defining clinical limit of detection (LOD) based on circulating tumor allele fraction (cTAF), enabling performance comparisons. Among 10 machine-learning classifiers trained on the same samples and independently validated, when evaluated at 98% specificity, those using whole-genome (WG) methylation, single nucleotide variants with paired white blood cell background removal, and combined scores from classifiers evaluated in this study show the highest cancer signal detection sensitivities. Compared with clinical stage and tumor type, cTAF is a more significant predictor of classifier performance and may more closely reflect tumor biology. Clinical LODs mirror relative sensitivities for all approaches. The WG methylation feature best predicts cancer signal origin. WG methylation is the most promising technology for MCED and informs development of a targeted methylation MCED test.

Prognostic Significance of Blood-Based Multi-cancer Detection in Plasma Cell-Free DNA.

PURPOSE: We recently reported the development of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) targeted methylation (TM)-based sequencing approach for a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that includes cancer signal origin prediction. Here, we evaluated the prognostic significance of cancer detection by the MCED test using longitudinal follow-up data. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: As part of a Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA) substudy, plasma cfDNA samples were sequenced using a TM approach, and machine learning classifiers predicted cancer status and cancer signal origin. Overall survival (OS) of cancer participants in the first 3 years of follow-up was evaluated in relation to cancer detection by the MCED test and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Cancers not detected by the MCED test had significantly better OS (P < 0.0001) than cancers detected, even after accounting for other covariates, including clinical stage and method of clinical diagnosis (i.e., standard-of-care screening or clinical presentation with signs/symptoms). Additionally, cancers not detected by the MCED test had better OS than was expected when data were adjusted for age, stage, and cancer type from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. In cancers with current screening options, the MCED test also differentiated more aggressive cancers from less aggressive cancers (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer detection by the MCED test was prognostic beyond clinical stage and method of diagnosis. Cancers not detected by the MCED test had better prognosis than cancers detected and SEER-based expected survival. Cancer detection and prognosis may be linked by the underlying biological factor of tumor fraction in cfDNA.