Multicancer Early Detection Screening Tools: Not Economically Efficient, Not Ethically Equitable, Marginally Medically Effective

A screening test for more than 50 cancers at earlier stages would strike many as a godsend. Such a test would promise, prima facie, to save 160,000 lives annually from a premature death from cancer, reduce the intensity of medical treatment, and reduce social costs. In brief, this is what is promised by the Galleri test. We will delineate those claims in greater detail and critically assess them from medical, economic, and ethical perspectives. We conclude, with many others, that this test lacks clinical validity and clinical utility. In addition, annual public funding of $100 billion for this test would be socially unaffordable; the opportunity costs would be unacceptable for both ethical and economic reasons. Further, the least well off with respect to cancer care would be made worse off if this test were publicly funded for everyone over the age of fifty.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Published
2024-12-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0963180124000756
Primary Topic
Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Multicancer Early Detection Screening Tools: Not Economically Efficient, Not Ethically Equitable, Marginally Medically Effective

Leonard M. Fleck
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
article

Multicancer Early Detection Screening Tools: Not Economically Efficient, Not Ethically Equitable, Marginally Medically Effective

Leonard M. Fleck
article en

Abstract

A screening test for more than 50 cancers at earlier stages would strike many as a godsend. Such a test would promise, prima facie, to save 160,000 lives annually from a premature death from cancer, reduce the intensity of medical treatment, and reduce social costs. In brief, this is what is promised by the Galleri test. We will delineate those claims in greater detail and critically assess them from medical, economic, and ethical perspectives. We conclude, with many others, that this test lacks clinical validity and clinical utility. In addition, annual public funding of $100 billion for this test would be socially unaffordable; the opportunity costs would be unacceptable for both ethical and economic reasons. Further, the least well off with respect to cancer care would be made worse off if this test were publicly funded for everyone over the age of fifty.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare EthicsVol. 34(3)
Michigan State University (US)
University of Cambridge
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Multicancer Early Detection Screening Tools: Not Economically Efficient, Not Ethically Equitable, Marginally Medically Effective — Leonard M. Fleck · Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS