Abstract Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the US. Early detection is crucial for improving survival rates, yet only 18% of eligible high-risk adults (aged 50-80 with ≥20 pack-years of cigarette smoking history) are up to date with recommended annual low-dose computed tomography screening. Non-invasive blood tests could increase screening participation. Here, we evaluate a multiomics approach for lung cancer detection in patients in the intended use population (IUP). Our test uses base-resolution methylation sequencing of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), as previously described, and plasma protein immunoassays. An artificial intelligence/machine learning classifier was trained on tissue (n = 136) and plasma (n = 6,716) samples. Accuracy was evaluated in a cohort of 673 plasma samples, including lung cancer cases (n = 363) and cancer-negative controls (n = 310) from the IUP. This cohort encompassed all cancer stages and three major subtypes — adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) — and its age and pack-year smoking history distributions reflected the IUP. Two specificities were considered: 50% (prioritizing sensitivity) and 75% (prioritizing specificity). Reported sensitivities were adjusted for stage and subtype to address differences between the evaluation cohort and literature-reported distributions for the IUP. (Adenocarcinoma and squamous data were weighted per stage and subtype; due to small sample size, SCLC data were weighted only per subtype.) 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed via Wilson’s method. The multiomics test had an IUP-adjusted sensitivity of 90.7% (CI: 86.8 - 93.7%) at 50% specificity and 80.4% (75.4 - 84.7%) at 75% specificity. Results for a methylation-only test were 85.8% (81.3 - 89.5%) and 78.2% (73.1 - 82.8%), respectively. The multiomics test showed higher sensitivity at both specificities but the differences were not statistically significant. At 50% specificity, the multiomics test had adjusted sensitivity for stages I through IV of 77.7% (73.3 - 89.0%), 95.2% (85.0 - 98.1%), 98.8% (93.6 - 99.7%) and 97.1% (90.7 - 98.9%), respectively. Corresponding results at 75% specificity were 63.5% (51.9 - 71.6%), 89.8% (76.6 - 94.1%), 90.9% (85.0 - 96.3%) and 95.9% (89.8 - 98.6%). At 50% specificity, the multiomics test’s adjusted sensitivity for adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma was 88.7% (81.4 - 92.0%) and 91.1% (84.3 - 96.1%), respectively; nominal sensitivity for SCLC was 97.1% (85.1 - 99.5%). Corresponding results at 75% specificity were 73.0% (63.1 - 77.6%), 88.6% (81.6 - 94.6%) and 91.2% (77.0 - 97.0%). Our multiomics platform demonstrated promising initial performance for blood-based lung cancer detection. The complementary nature of cfDNA methylation and plasma protein may enhance performance relative to a methylation-only approach, and this will be further assessed in a future study with a previously unseen evaluation cohort. Citation Format: Ofer Shapira, Alexander F. Lovejoy, Álvaro González, Urvee Desai, Thomas Royce, Gurnit Atwal, Ian Bast, Eric Beraut, Alexandra Buckley, Austin Cauwels, Peter Combs, Nicholas Eisele, G Parker Flowers, Lourdes Gomez, Rebecca Gupte, Johnnie Hahm, Teng-Kuei Hsu, Saiful Islam, Poorval Joshi, Amanda Kahn-Kirby, Phuong Thuy Menchavez, Erene Mina, Jinesh Niroula, Cameron Pospisil, Sodany Son, Rashmi Sriram, Peter Ulz, Russell Williams, Rui Yang, Wilson Zhang, Marian Navratil, C Jimmy Lin, Tanya Moreno, Richard Bourgon. Development and performance of a multiomics lung cancer screening blood test abstract. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 1107.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ofer Shapira
Alexander F. Lovejoy
Alvaro Jose Gonzalez
Cancer Research
Freenome (United States)
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Shapira et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d1fde4a79560c99a0a4363 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2026-1107