IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v45y2025i8p1013-1024.html

Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models

Author

Listed:
  • Olena Mandrik

    (Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Sophie Whyte

    (Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Natalia Kunst

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • Annabel Rayner

    (Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK)

  • Melissa Harden

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK)

  • Sofia Dias

    (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK)

  • Katherine Payne

    (Manchester Centre for Health Economics, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, UK)

  • Stephen Palmer

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

  • Marta O. Soares

    (Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK)

Abstract

Introduction The potential for multicancer early detection (MCED) tests to detect cancer at earlier stages is currently being evaluated in screening clinical trials. Once trial evidence becomes available, modeling will be necessary to predict the effects on final outcomes (benefits and harms), account for heterogeneity in determining clinical and cost-effectiveness, and explore alternative screening program specifications. The natural history of disease (NHD) component will use statistical, mathematical, or calibration methods. This work aims to identify, review, and critically appraise the existing literature for alternative modeling approaches proposed for MCED that include an NHD component. Methods Modeling approaches for MCED screening that include an NHD component were identified from the literature, reviewed, and critically appraised. Purposively selected (non-MCED) cancer-screening models were also reviewed. The appraisal focused on the scope, data sources, evaluation approaches, and the structure and parameterization of the models. Results Five different MCED models incorporating an NHD component were identified and reviewed, alongside 4 additional (non-MCED) models. The critical appraisal highlighted several features of this literature. In the absence of trial evidence, MCED effects are based on predictions derived from test accuracy. These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions with unknown impacts, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality impacts from predicted stage shifts. None of the MCED models fully characterized uncertainty in the NHD or examined uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption. Conclusion There is currently no modeling approach for MCEDs that can integrate clinical study evidence. In support of policy, it is important that efforts are made to develop models that make the best use of data from the large and costly clinical studies being designed and implemented across the globe. Highlights In the absence of trial evidence, published estimates of the effects of multicancer early detection (MCED) tests are based on predictions derived from test accuracy. These predictions rely on simplifying assumptions, such as the stage-shift assumption used to estimate mortality effects from predicted stage shifts. The effects of such simplifying assumptions are mostly unknown. None of the existing MCED models fully characterize uncertainty in the natural history of disease; none examine uncertainty in the stage-shift assumption. Currently, there is no modeling approach that can integrate clinical study evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Olena Mandrik & Sophie Whyte & Natalia Kunst & Annabel Rayner & Melissa Harden & Sofia Dias & Katherine Payne & Stephen Palmer & Marta O. Soares, 2025. "Modeling the Impact of Multicancer Early Detection Tests: A Review of Natural History of Disease Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(8), pages 1013-1024, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:8:p:1013-1024
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251351639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251351639
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251351639?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sophie Whyte & Cathal Walsh & Jim Chilcott, 2011. "Bayesian Calibration of a Natural History Model with Application to a Population Model for Colorectal Cancer," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(4), pages 625-641, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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.
    1. Olivia Adair & Ethna McFerran & Mark Lawler & Luuk A. van Duuren & Felicity Lamrock, 2026. "Developing and Calibrating a Colorectal Cancer Microsimulation Model for Northern Ireland," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 461-475, April.
    2. Hou, D. & Hassan, I.G. & Wang, L., 2021. "Review on building energy model calibration by Bayesian inference," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    3. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Sophie Whyte & Paul Tappenden, 2015. "Distributional Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of Health Care Programmes – A Methodological Case Study of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Programme," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 742-754, June.
    4. Miqdad Asaria & Susan Griffin & Richard Cookson & Sophie Whyte & Paul Tappenden, 2013. "Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Health Care Programmes," Working Papers 091cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:8:p:1013-1024. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.