Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.
Goli Samimi, Sarah M Temkin, Carol J Weil, Paul K J Han, Elyse LeeVan, Wendy S Rubinstein, Tessa M Swigart, Sarah Caban, Katherine Dent, Lori M Minasian
Author Information
Goli Samimi: Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. ORCID
Sarah M Temkin: Office of Research on Women's Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Carol J Weil: Independent Consultant, Human Research Protections and Bioethics, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Paul K J Han: Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Elyse LeeVan: Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Wendy S Rubinstein: Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Tessa M Swigart: ICF Next, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Sarah Caban: ICF Next, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Katherine Dent: ICF Next, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Lori M Minasian: Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
INTRODUCTION: Multicancer detection tests (MCDs) are blood-based tests designed to detect multiple cancer types. It is currently unclear whether these cancer screening tests improve mortality. To understand awareness of MCDs among providers and patients, as well as explore how they perceive the benefits, harms, and acceptability of MCDs, we have undertaken a focus group study in primary care physicians (PCPs) and laypersons to explore knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of cancer screening using MCDs. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups with 45 PCP participants and 12 focus groups with 80 layperson participants. Participants were identified via a consumer research firm and found eligible following the completion of a screener survey. Moderators used a semi-structured guide containing open-ended questions and prompts to facilitate the discussion. Recordings were transcribed and coded line by line using a codebook developed based on questions and emerging discussion concepts, and emergent themes were identified. RESULTS: Both PCP and layperson participants felt the that benefits of MCDs included ease of use and potential ability to detect cancers early. However, they felt that additional data is needed to overcome some of the concerns related to MCDs. PCP participants expressed concerns related to lack of practice guidelines, cost of diagnostic follow-ups, privacy and insurance issues, fear/anxiety related to confirmation of MCD results, and malpractice liability related to perceived false negative test results. Layperson participants expressed concerns related to costs, insurance coverage, and privacy, as well as anxiety over the confirmation of a positive test result. CONCLUSIONS: There is a major need for more rigorous data regarding MCDs to inform the development of guidelines for use as cancer screening tools.
