Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

Open Access 18-10-2024 | Lung Cancer | Protocol

Integrating Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Tests with Standard Cancer Screening: System Dynamics Model Development and Feasibility Testing

Authors: Mussab Fagery, Hadi A. Khorshidi, Stephen Q. Wong, Özge Karanfil, Jon Emery, Maarten J. IJzerman

Published in: PharmacoEconomics - Open | Issue 1/2025

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Cancer screening plays a critical role in early disease detection and improving outcomes. In Australia, established screening protocols for colorectal, breast and cervical cancer have significantly contributed to timely cancer detection. However, the recent introduction of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests arguably can disrupt current screening, yet the extent to which these tests provide additional benefits remains uncertain. We present the development and initial validation of a system dynamics (SD) model that estimates the additional cancer detections and costs associated with MCED tests.

Aim

This article describes the development of a simulation model built to evaluate the additional patient diagnoses and the economic impact of incorporating MCED testing alongside Australia’s well-established standard of care (SOC) screening programs for colorectal, breast, cervical and lung cancers. The model was designed to estimate the additional number of patients diagnosed at each cancer stage (stage I, II, III, IV, or unknown) and the associated costs. This simulation model allows for the analysis of multiple scenarios under a plausible set of assumptions regarding population-level participation rates.

Methods

An SD model was developed to represent the existing SOC national cancer screening pathways and to integrate potential clinical pathways that could be introduced by MCED tests. The SD model was built to investigate three scenarios for the use of MCED testing: firstly, to explore the viability of MCED testing as a substitute among individuals who are not opting for SOC screening for any reason; secondly, to implement MCED testing exclusively for individuals ineligible for SOC screening, yet have high-risk characteristics; and thirdly, to employ MCED testing after SOC screening to serve as a triaging/confirmatory tool for individuals receiving inconclusive test results. The three primary scenarios were constructed by varying diagnostic accuracy and uptake rates of MCED tests.

Discussion

The clinical utility and outcomes of MCED testing for screening and early detection still lack comprehensive evidence. Nonetheless, this simulation model facilitates a thorough analysis of MCED tests within the Australian healthcare context, providing insights into potential additional detections and costs to the healthcare system, which may help prioritise future evidence development. The adaptable yet novel SD model presented herein is anticipated to be of considerable interest to industry, policymakers, consumers and clinicians involved in informing clinical and economic decisions regarding integrating MCED tests as cancer screening and early detection tools. The expected results of applying this SD model will determine whether using MCED testing in conjunction with SOC screening offers any potential benefits, possibly guiding policy decisions and clinical practices towards the adoption of MCED tests.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Clarke CA, et al. Projected reductions in absolute cancer-related deaths from diagnosing cancers before metastasis, 2006–2015. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020;29(5):895–902.CrossRefPubMed Clarke CA, et al. Projected reductions in absolute cancer-related deaths from diagnosing cancers before metastasis, 2006–2015. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020;29(5):895–902.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Health, A.G.D.o. Population based screening framework. 2018. Health, A.G.D.o. Population based screening framework. 2018.
4.
go back to reference Lennon AM et al. Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention. Science 2020;369(6499):eabb9601. Lennon AM et al. Feasibility of blood testing combined with PET-CT to screen for cancer and guide intervention. Science 2020;369(6499):eabb9601.
6.
go back to reference Liang PS, et al. Adherence to competing strategies for colorectal cancer screening over 3 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(1):105–14.CrossRefPubMed Liang PS, et al. Adherence to competing strategies for colorectal cancer screening over 3 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(1):105–14.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference (MSAC) M.S.A.C. National Lung Cancer Screening Program (Application No. 1699). 2022. (MSAC) M.S.A.C. National Lung Cancer Screening Program (Application No. 1699). 2022.
10.
go back to reference Brito-Rocha T, et al. Shifting the cancer screening paradigm: the rising potential of blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests. Cells. 2023;12(6):935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Brito-Rocha T, et al. Shifting the cancer screening paradigm: the rising potential of blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests. Cells. 2023;12(6):935.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Constantin N, et al. Opportunities for early cancer detection: the rise of ctDNA methylation-based pan-cancer screening technologies. Epigenomes. 2022;6(1):6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Constantin N, et al. Opportunities for early cancer detection: the rise of ctDNA methylation-based pan-cancer screening technologies. Epigenomes. 2022;6(1):6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference LeeVan E, Pinsky P. Predictive performance of cell-free nucleic acid-based multi-cancer early detection tests: a systematic review. Clin Chem. 2023;70(1):90–101.CrossRef LeeVan E, Pinsky P. Predictive performance of cell-free nucleic acid-based multi-cancer early detection tests: a systematic review. Clin Chem. 2023;70(1):90–101.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Minasian LM, et al. Study design considerations for trials to evaluate multicancer early detection assays for clinical utility. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023;115(3):250–7.CrossRefPubMed Minasian LM, et al. Study design considerations for trials to evaluate multicancer early detection assays for clinical utility. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2023;115(3):250–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Hubbell E, et al. Modeled reductions in late-stage cancer with a multi-cancer early detection test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021;30(3):460–8.CrossRefPubMed Hubbell E, et al. Modeled reductions in late-stage cancer with a multi-cancer early detection test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2021;30(3):460–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Nicholson BD, et al. Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(7):733–43.CrossRefPubMed Nicholson BD, et al. Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(7):733–43.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Neal RD, et al. Cell-free DNA-based multi-cancer early detection test in an asymptomatic screening population (NHS-Galleri): design of a pragmatic, prospective randomised controlled trial. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(19):4818.CrossRefPubMed Neal RD, et al. Cell-free DNA-based multi-cancer early detection test in an asymptomatic screening population (NHS-Galleri): design of a pragmatic, prospective randomised controlled trial. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(19):4818.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Siravegna G, et al. Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(9):531–48.CrossRefPubMed Siravegna G, et al. Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(9):531–48.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Ijzerman MJ, et al. Emerging use of early health technology assessment in medical product development: a scoping review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(7):727–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ijzerman MJ, et al. Emerging use of early health technology assessment in medical product development: a scoping review of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(7):727–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Marshall DA, et al. Addressing challenges of economic evaluation in precision medicine using dynamic simulation modeling. Value Health. 2020;23(5):566–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Marshall DA, et al. Addressing challenges of economic evaluation in precision medicine using dynamic simulation modeling. Value Health. 2020;23(5):566–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Jadeja N, et al. Using system dynamics modelling to assess the economic efficiency of innovations in the public sector—a systematic review. PLoS One. 2022;17(2): e0263299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jadeja N, et al. Using system dynamics modelling to assess the economic efficiency of innovations in the public sector—a systematic review. PLoS One. 2022;17(2): e0263299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Rutter H, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602–4.CrossRefPubMed Rutter H, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602–4.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Stange KC, et al. State-of-the-art and future directions in multilevel interventions across the cancer control continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;2012(44):20–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Stange KC, et al. State-of-the-art and future directions in multilevel interventions across the cancer control continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;2012(44):20–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
31.
go back to reference Lipscomb J, et al. Evaluating the impact of multicancer early detection testing on health and economic outcomes: toward a decision modeling strategy. Cancer. 2022;128(Suppl 4):892–908.CrossRefPubMed Lipscomb J, et al. Evaluating the impact of multicancer early detection testing on health and economic outcomes: toward a decision modeling strategy. Cancer. 2022;128(Suppl 4):892–908.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Karanfil Ö, Sterman J. “Saving lives or harming the healthy?” Overuse and fluctuations in routine medical screening. Syst Dyn Rev. 2020;36(3):294–329.CrossRef Karanfil Ö, Sterman J. “Saving lives or harming the healthy?” Overuse and fluctuations in routine medical screening. Syst Dyn Rev. 2020;36(3):294–329.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Karanfil O. Dynamics of medical screening: a simulation model of PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer. Systems. 2023;11(5):252.CrossRef Karanfil O. Dynamics of medical screening: a simulation model of PSA screening for early detection of prostate cancer. Systems. 2023;11(5):252.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Fagery M, et al. Health economic evidence and modeling challenges for liquid biopsy assays in cancer management: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(10):1229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fagery M, et al. Health economic evidence and modeling challenges for liquid biopsy assays in cancer management: a systematic literature review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(10):1229–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
go back to reference Marshall DA, et al. Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research-the SIMULATE checklist: report of the ISPOR simulation modeling emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2015;18(1):5–16.CrossRefPubMed Marshall DA, et al. Applying dynamic simulation modeling methods in health care delivery research-the SIMULATE checklist: report of the ISPOR simulation modeling emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2015;18(1):5–16.CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Forrester JW. Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press; 1961. Forrester JW. Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press; 1961.
38.
go back to reference Marshall DA, et al. Selecting a dynamic simulation modeling method for health care delivery research-part 2: report of the ISPOR Dynamic Simulation Modeling Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2015;18(2):147–60.CrossRefPubMed Marshall DA, et al. Selecting a dynamic simulation modeling method for health care delivery research-part 2: report of the ISPOR Dynamic Simulation Modeling Emerging Good Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2015;18(2):147–60.CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Australia C. Report on the Lung Cancer Screening Enquiry. 2020. Australia C. Report on the Lung Cancer Screening Enquiry. 2020.
40.
go back to reference Welfare A.I.o.H.a. Cancer data in Australia. 2023. Welfare A.I.o.H.a. Cancer data in Australia. 2023.
41.
go back to reference Parkin CJ, Bell SW, Mirbagheri N. Colorectal cancer screening in Australia: an update. Aust J Gen Pract. 2018;47(12):859–63.CrossRefPubMed Parkin CJ, Bell SW, Mirbagheri N. Colorectal cancer screening in Australia: an update. Aust J Gen Pract. 2018;47(12):859–63.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Welfare A.I.o.H.a. National bowel cancer screening program: monitoring report 2017, in Cancer. 2017. Welfare A.I.o.H.a. National bowel cancer screening program: monitoring report 2017, in Cancer. 2017.
47.
go back to reference LeeVan E, Pinsky P. Predictive performance of cell-free nucleic acid-based multi-cancer early detection tests: a systematic review. Clin Chem. 2024;70(1):90–101.CrossRefPubMed LeeVan E, Pinsky P. Predictive performance of cell-free nucleic acid-based multi-cancer early detection tests: a systematic review. Clin Chem. 2024;70(1):90–101.CrossRefPubMed
49.
go back to reference Tafazzoli A, et al. The potential value-based price of a multi-cancer early detection genomic blood test to complement current single cancer screening in the USA. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40(11):1107–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Tafazzoli A, et al. The potential value-based price of a multi-cancer early detection genomic blood test to complement current single cancer screening in the USA. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40(11):1107–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
go back to reference Owens L, Gulati R, Etzioni R. Stage shift as an endpoint in cancer screening trials: implications for evaluating multicancer early detection tests. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31(7):1298–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Owens L, Gulati R, Etzioni R. Stage shift as an endpoint in cancer screening trials: implications for evaluating multicancer early detection tests. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2022;31(7):1298–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
go back to reference Callister MEJ, et al. Evaluating multi-cancer early detection tests: an argument for the outcome of recurrence-updated stage. Br J Cancer. 2023;129(8):1209–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Callister MEJ, et al. Evaluating multi-cancer early detection tests: an argument for the outcome of recurrence-updated stage. Br J Cancer. 2023;129(8):1209–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Integrating Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Tests with Standard Cancer Screening: System Dynamics Model Development and Feasibility Testing
Authors
Mussab Fagery
Hadi A. Khorshidi
Stephen Q. Wong
Özge Karanfil
Jon Emery
Maarten J. IJzerman
Publication date
18-10-2024
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics - Open / Issue 1/2025
Print ISSN: 2509-4262
Electronic ISSN: 2509-4254
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00533-3