Multi-cancer early detection tests for general population screening: a systematic literature review by Ros Wade, Sarah Nevitt, Yiwen Liu, Melissa Harden, Claire Khouja, Gary Raine, Rachel Churchill, Sofia Dias

“…Overall test sensitivity and specificity reported below [95% confidence interval (CI) shown in brackets] are not directly comparable across different MCED tests, owing to differences in the number of cancer types each test can detect: Galleri (three studies) Sensitivity: 20.8% (14.0% to 29.2%) to 66.3% (61.2% to 71.1%) Specificity: 98.4% (98.1% to 98.8%) to 99.5% (99.0% to 99.8%) CancerSEEK (two studies) Sensitivity: 27.1% (18.5% to 37.1%) to 62.3% (59.3% to 65.3%) Specificity: 98.9% (98.7% to 99.1%) to 99.1% (98.5% to 99.8%) SPOT-MAS (two studies) Sensitivity: 72.4% (66.3% to 78.0%) to 100% (54.1% to 100%) Specificity: 97.0% (95.1% to 98.4%) to 99.9% (99.6% to 100%) Trucheck (one study) Sensitivity: 90.0% (55.5% to 99.7%) Specificity: 96.4% (95.9% to 96.8%) CDA (one study) Sensitivity: 40.0% (12.2% to 73.8%) Specificity: 97.6% (96.8% to 98.2%) AminoIndex Cancer Screenings for individual cancers separately; sensitivity ranged from 16.7% (3.0% to 56.4%) for ovary/uterus cancer to 51.7% (34.4% to 68.6%) for gastric cancer. …”
Get full text

Comparative Ethics of Modern Payment Models by Jacob Riegler

“….; Teisberg E, Wallace S, O’Hara S. Defining and Implementing Value-Based Health Care: A Strategic Framework. …”
Get full text