Survey reveals low awareness and high perceived value of MCED tests in diverse populations, suggesting potential for early cancer detection.
Background: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests represent a promising advancement in cancer screening technology. These tests can identify biomarkers from multiple cancer types using a single biological sample, potentially reducing cancer mortality and addressing cancer inequities. Little is known about MCED test awareness and perceived value among adults in the United States (U.S.). Methods: Using nationally representative data from the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey, we computed national estimates of MCED test awareness and perceived value and evaluated whether estimates varied across different population groups. Results: The weighted sample represented 244 million U.S. adults, with 16.8% (95% CI: 15.2%-18.3%) aware of MCED tests and 42.1% (40.0%-44.2%) perceiving them as very valuable. In adjusted analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.29 [1.01-1.65]) and health-related social media use (aPR = 1.04 [1.01-1.06]) were associated with MCED test awareness. Factors associated with perceiving MCED tests as very valuable included: older age (e.g., 35-49 vs. 18-34: aPR = 1.43 [1.20-1.70]), minoritized race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black: aPR = 1.31 [1.15-1.50]; Hispanic: aPR = 1.40 [1.22-1.60]), family cancer history (aPR = 1.17 [1.03-1.34]), and frequent patient portal use (>=6 times vs. none: aPR = 1.23 [1.06-1.42]). Conclusion: While awareness remains low, high perceived value among older adults and minoritized racial/ethnic populations suggests readiness for MCED adoption in groups that may benefit most from early cancer detection. Impact: This report provides baseline data to inform equitable access strategies as MCED tests await approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and seek coverage from insurers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bather et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: