Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Study

Thank you for posting. I have archived the info and web site for discussion with our doctor during upcoming appointment. Sounds very interesting, even with the disclaimers.

It pays to follow up, especially with a positive, whether it be a false or not. Don't get excited, just follow up. Pro active prevention or detection is never time wasted.

A test already proven effective and free to those accepted into the trial, with only a 3 year follow-on commitment at most.

No experimental vaccines or pharmaceuticals going into my body.

Most likely avoiding what recently lost friends and their families have undergone.

Peace of mind or time to take action if needed, given 1 parent lost to cancer, the other a survivor, and that one's parents taken by cancers.

…the future of cancer detection.

Thanks for sharing,

Very interesting, thanks

. . .is why people aren't clamoring to get involved in this study or otherwise have their doctors order this test. Environmentally attributable cancers are bad enough, but anyone with a family history of it should IMO be jumping for joy that there's a reliable way to check early for over 50 types rather than the common 5 via current routine methods.

True, out of pocket, the Galleri screening isn't cheap, but the financial costs of fighting cancer are manyfold worse. What price do you put on the emotional toll, which not only impacts the patient and close family, but also encompasses others beyond those financially affected?

If there's something there, it's common knowledge that the sooner it's discovered, the better. Stepping down from my soap box now...

I'm not trying here to talk anyone out of taking the test. Obviously this is a deeply personal decision for anyone, and of course someone reading your thread could potentially take this test, and it made the difference in saving or at least extending their life. I have to say that's not at all likely statistically, but of course it's possible.

Why unlikely? I believe I read on their website that by their own historic data, 99.7% of patients taking the test, test negative. Which is a good thing, they say. And yes, sure it is.

And maybe that gives some people peace of mind. It wouldn't give me any, though. There are many cancers Galleri doesn't have markers to test for yet. Brain cancer, for example. Not as common as some people think. Probably due to the blood-brain barrier, brain cancer doesn't ping on Galleri radar. People worry about it. And just because I have no markers today for the cancers they are checking for doesn't mean I wouldn't have them next year. Am I going to keep taking this test annually? No.

I do have cancer risks due to family history and exposure, as I imagine all or certainly most people do. But I looked at Galleri a year ago and decided it was not for me. I looked at it again in the wake of your thread and still feel: not a good option for me.

Some cancers Galleri tests for are not particularly amenable to treatment, at least with a significant benefit to early treatment. I was particularly struck by one close to my own concern, malignant pleural mesothelioma. Yeah they can find the marker for it, if you have it, which could mean you have MPM. But to what avail?

I'm not an MD. I claim no expertise about the test. I've only read some of the material about it on the company website.

I feel that your comment that this test was "proven effective," without a qualifier, may be a significant overreach in the way some readers might interpret it. What I will accept based on what I've read is that Galleri is proven effective at detecting certain chemical markers in the blood that can be associated with at least a significantly higher risk of one or more particular cancers. Can Be.

What is not "proven effective" is that Galleri in a statistically significant way extends lifespans, enhances quality of life, or saves money by leading to early treatment of cancer based on test findings in a way that offsets the cost of the test. You can see that it has not been proven to do any those things, because that's why they're doing this study. As you say, Medicare and most health insurance won't pay for this test, because it has not been proven to do any of those things yet. Perhaps it will be. Keep in mind that many and probably most investigations like this don't end up proving what they're testing for.

There is evidence supporting the use of the six tests you mention in detecting cancer early enough to make a difference. That's why insurance companies cover those six tests. Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because those tests--including a very expensive colonoscopy procedure--save them money in the long run and save lives because of early detection when the cancer is asymptomatic and relatively very treatable.

One concern the company addresses in their literature is that one should only take Galleri if they are already up-to-date on the screenings medical insurance will cover. They know some people might think, hey, I can take this test instead of a colonoscopy. It's cheaper and less invasive. That would not be a good way to go. That's because as you say, this test is not as good at detecting colon cancer as colonoscopy, and because perhaps the biggest benefit of a regular screening colonoscopy is that the GI doc can remove any precancerous polyps that are seen.

Taking this test without already having very good medical insurance or deep financial resources is risky. If someone tests positive but can't afford additional testing and care, they will be highly stressed worrying about cancer. Even if the company covers all or most of the expense of the test for a patient, I think it's unlikely that the company will pay for any of the potentially very expensive and more invasive follow-up testing if something in Galleri pings positive--to say nothing of any treatment. Sure, if it adds years to a patient's life, it's worth it, but it may do little or nothing to extend life or improve quality of life for a significant number of patients. For example, someone diagnosed with prostate cancer should always follow up with a specialist to decide on a treatment plan, but often, the best treatment plan is to simply continue monitoring, because most prostate cancer patients have a slow-growing cancer and often die from something else first. The additional testing or treatment can also shorten lives or reduce quality of life, as with say a critical infection.

Someone wanting to take this test should have an in-depth discussion about it with their own personal doctor, because the doctor may say, whoa, wait, for some of the reasons here. Of course many people don't even have access to a regular doctor or if they do, don't get to have extended discussions with them. This test is not a substitute for that, either.