Author
Listed:
- Mussab Fagery
(The University of Melbourne
The University of Melbourne)
- Hadi A. Khorshidi
(The University of Melbourne
The University of Melbourne)
- Stephen Q. Wong
(Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
Sir Peter MacCallum, University of Melbourne)
- Özge Karanfil
(Koç University
MIT Sloan School of Management)
- Jon Emery
(University of Melbourne)
- Maarten J. IJzerman
(The University of Melbourne
The University of Melbourne
Erasmus University Rotterdam)
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.
Suggested Citation
Mussab Fagery & Hadi A. Khorshidi & Stephen Q. Wong & Özge Karanfil & Jon Emery & Maarten J. IJzerman, 2025.
"Integrating Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Tests with Standard Cancer Screening: System Dynamics Model Development and Feasibility Testing,"
PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 147-160, January.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00533-3
DOI: 10.1007/s41669-024-00533-3
Download full text from publisher
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
- Özge Karanfil & Niyousha Hosseinichimeh & Jim Duggan, 2020.
"System dynamics and bio‐medical modeling,"
System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(4), pages 389-396, October.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:9:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s41669-024-00533-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.