Back to Authors

Hubbell, Earl

0000-0001-7301-3759

Mayo Clinic

GRAIL, LLC, Menlo Park, CA.

Citations 3

Performance of a Cell-Free DNA-Based Multi-cancer Detection Test in Individuals Presenting With Symptoms Suspicious for Cancers
Bryce, Alan H. , Thiel, David D. , Seiden, Michael V., Richards, Donald , Luan, Ying, Coignet, Marie V. , Zhang, Quan , Hubbell, Earl , Kurtzman, Kathryn N. , Klein, Eric A. , Coignet, Marie , Hubbell, Earl , Kurtzman, Kathryn N , Klein, Eric A , Bryce, Alan H , Luan, Ying, Zhang, Nan

JCO Precision Oncology | July 19, 2023 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: 7 | Pages: No page available

10.1200/po.22.00679 Get It

PURPOSE A multi-cancer detection test using a targeted methylation assay and machine learning classifiers was validated and optimized for screening in prospective, case-controlled Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02889978 ) substudy 3. Here, we report test performance in a subgroup of participants with symptoms suspicious for cancer to assess the test's ability to potentially facilitate efficient diagnostic evaluation in symptomatic individuals. METHODS We evaluated test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of cancer signal origin [CSO] prediction accuracy) in participants with clinically presenting cancers (CPCs) and noncancer with underlying medical conditions and among two subgroups (65 years and older and GI cancers). Overall survival (OS) of participants who had a cancer signal detected/not detected was compared with SEER-based expected survival. RESULTS A total of 2,036 cancer and 1,472 noncancer participants were included. Specificity was high in all noncancer participants (99.5% [95% CI, 98.4 to 99.8]). In participants with CPCs, the overall sensitivity was 64.3% (95% CI, 62.2 to 66.4) and the overall accuracy of CSO prediction in true positives was 90.3%. For GI cancers, the overall sensitivity was 84.1% (95% CI, 80.6 to 87.1). In participants 65 years and older, test performance was similar to that of all participants. Individuals with cancers not detected had a significantly better OS than that expected from SEER ( P < .01). CONCLUSION This test detected a cancer signal with high specificity and CSO prediction accuracy and moderate sensitivity in symptomatic individuals, with especially high performance in participants with GI cancers. The survival analysis implied that the cancers not detected were less clinically aggressive than cancers detected by the test, providing prognostic insights to physicians. This multi-cancer detection test could facilitate efficient workup and stratify cancer risk in symptomatic individuals.
Multi-cancer early detection test sensitivity for cancers with and without current population-level screening options
Shao, Spencer H. , Clement, Jessica, Chung, Gina G., Gao, Jingjing , Hubbell, Earl , Liu, Minetta C. , Yimer, Habte, Tummala, Mohan K., Hubbell, Earl , Allen, Brian, Swanton, Charles , Tang, W.H. Wilson

Tumori Journal | November 1, 2022 | Volume: 109 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 335-341

10.1177/03008916221133136 Get It

There are four solid tumors with common screening options in the average-risk population aged 21 to 75 years (breast, cervical, colorectal, and, based on personalized risk assessment, prostate), but many cancers lack recommended population screening and are often detected at advanced stages when mortality is high. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests have the potential to improve cancer mortality through additional population screening. Reported here is a post-hoc analysis from the third Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas substudy to examine multi-cancer early detection test performance in solid tumors with and without population screening recommendations and in hematologic malignancies. Participants with cancer in the third Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas substudy analysis were split into three subgroups: solid screened tumors (breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate), solid unscreened tumors, and hematologic malignancies. In this post hoc analysis, sensitivity is reported for each subgroup across all ages and those aged ⩾50 years overall, by cancer, and by clinical cancer stage. Aggregate sensitivity in the solid screened, solid unscreened, and hematologic malignancy subgroups was 34%, 66%, and 55% across all cancer stages, respectively; restricting to participants aged ⩾50 years showed similar aggregate sensitivity. Aggregate sensitivity was 27%, 53%, and 60% across stages I to III, respectively. Within the solid unscreened subgroup, aggregate sensitivity was >75% in 8/18 cancers (44%) and >50% in 13/18 (72%). This multi-cancer early detection test detected cancer signals at high (>75%) sensitivity for multiple cancers without existing population screening recommendations, suggesting its potential to complement recommended screening programs. Clinical trial identifier: NCT02889978.
Prognostic Significance of Blood-Based Multi-cancer Detection in Plasma Cell-Free DNA
Chen, Xiaoji , Hubbell, Earl , Kurtzman, Kathryn N. , Oxnard, Geoffrey R. , Venn, Oliver, Melton, Collin, Shaknovich, Rita , Ma, Ting , Meixiong, Gerry, Seiden, Michael V., Klein, Eric A. , Fung, Eric T. , Liu, Minetta C. , Hubbell, Earl , Kurtzman, Kathryn N , Klein, Eric A , Liu, Minetta , Zhao, Dong , Clarke, Christina A.

Clinical Cancer Research | June 4, 2021 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 4221-4229

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-0417 Get It

Abstract Purpose: We recently reported the development of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) targeted methylation (TM)-based sequencing approach for a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that includes cancer signal origin prediction. Here, we evaluated the prognostic significance of cancer detection by the MCED test using longitudinal follow-up data. Experimental Design: As part of a Circulating Cell-free Genome Atlas (CCGA) substudy, plasma cfDNA samples were sequenced using a TM approach, and machine learning classifiers predicted cancer status and cancer signal origin. Overall survival (OS) of cancer participants in the first 3 years of follow-up was evaluated in relation to cancer detection by the MCED test and clinical characteristics. Results: Cancers not detected by the MCED test had significantly better OS (P &lt; 0.0001) than cancers detected, even after accounting for other covariates, including clinical stage and method of clinical diagnosis (i.e., standard-of-care screening or clinical presentation with signs/symptoms). Additionally, cancers not detected by the MCED test had better OS than was expected when data were adjusted for age, stage, and cancer type from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. In cancers with current screening options, the MCED test also differentiated more aggressive cancers from less aggressive cancers (P &lt; 0.0001). Conclusions: Cancer detection by the MCED test was prognostic beyond clinical stage and method of diagnosis. Cancers not detected by the MCED test had better prognosis than cancers detected and SEER-based expected survival. Cancer detection and prognosis may be linked by the underlying biological factor of tumor fraction in cfDNA.