Use of artificial intelligence in clinical laboratory testing could improve the diagnosis of cancer worldwide
In a proof of concept study, scientists at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China have developed a clinical laboratory test that utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose three types of cancer from a single drop of dried blood. The paper-based test was able to identify patients with colorectal, gastric, and pancreatic cancers and distinguish between patients with and without cancer.
The team’s goal was to develop a way to diagnose cancer while the disease is still in the earlier stages, especially in rural areas.
“Over a billion people across the world experience a high rate of missed disease diagnosis, an issue that highlights the need for diagnostic tools showing increased accuracy and affordability. In addition, such tools could be used in ecologically fragile and energy-limited regions, pointing to the need for developing solutions that can maximize health gains under limited resources for enhanced sustainability,” the researchers wrote in an article published in the journal Nature Sustainability titled, “A Sustainable Approach to Universal Metabolic Cancer Diagnosis.”
The researchers determined that by using less than 0.05 millimeters of dried blood, their test could accurately and quickly identify if a patient had cancer between 82% to 100% of the time.
According to Chaoyuan Kuang, MD, PhD (above), an oncologist at Montefiore Health System and assistant professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, unlike liquid blood, dried serum can be “collected, stored, and transported at much lower cost and with much simpler equipment,” Live Science reported. “This could help democratize the availability of cancer early detection testing across the world,” he added. A paper-based clinical laboratory test that can detect and distinguish one cancer type from another would be a boon to cancer diagnosis worldwide. (Photo copyright: Albert Einstein College of Medicine.)
Improving Cancer Screening in Rural Areas
An earlier study conducted in China in 2022 examined results from 1,570 cancer survivors from both urban and rural areas of China. That study showed that 84.1% of the patients were diagnosed with cancer only after developing symptoms and that urban patients were more likely to be diagnosed in the early stages of cancer. In addition, rural patients also had less screening and treatment options available to them.
The researchers in this latest Chinese study tested their AI model on blood donors with and without cancer and compared the results to traditional liquid-blood biopsy tests.
“Based on modeling they performed, they reported the new tool could reduce the estimated proportion of undiagnosed cases of pancreatic, gastric, and colorectal cancers by about 20% to 50% if it was used for population-level cancer screening in rural China,” Live Science reported.
The scientists used dried serum spots (DSS) and machine learning to perform the research. According to their Nature Sustainability paper, DSS can be challenging in cancer research because sensitive biomarkers in the samples are often degraded or have inadequate amount of blood for proper analysis. To circumvent these issues, the researchers used nanoparticle-enhanced laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry (NPELDI MS) to increase reliability and sensitivity. Inorganic nanoparticles were applied to the samples to strengthen selectivity and refine metabolic compounds from the samples.
However, the study authors noted that “the adaptation of NPELDI MS to dried spot analysis has not been validated,” Interesting Engineering reported.
A ‘Great Start’
The machine learning algorithm the Chinese scientists created demonstrates that DSS samples can be used to preserve important biological markers and could be beneficial in the diagnosis of cancer.
Their research indicated an overall reduction rate of undiagnosed cancers in the range of 20.35% to 55.10%. The researchers estimated the implementation of their AI tool could reduce the proportion of specific undiagnosed cancer cases in rural China by:
84.30% to 29.20% for colorectal cancer,
77.57% to 57.22% for gastric cancer, and
34.56% to 9.30% for pancreatic cancer.
It’s a “great start,” Chaoyuan Kuang, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Montefiore Health System and assistant professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine told Live Science. “This cancer test won’t enter use for a long time,” he said. Nevertheless, the potential of the tool is “immense,” he added, but that “we are still years away from being able to offer this test to patients.
“With further development, it could theoretically be used for the early detection of other types of cancer or for other diseases, or to monitor the progression of disease in patients who have already been diagnosed,” he noted.
Further research and clinical trials are needed before this AI tool can be used in a clinical diagnostic setting. This study is another example of researchers looking for cancer biomarkers in specimen types that are not tissue and further supports the hope that machine learning may one day detect cancer in earlier stages, increase survival rates, and save healthcare costs.
One factor motivating this type of research in China is the fact that the nation has more than 36,000 hospitals and approximately 20,000 anatomic pathologists. Of this total, only a minority of these pathologists have been trained to the standards of North America and Northern Europe.
Like other nations, China’s demand for subspecialist pathology services outstrips its supply of such pathologists. This is the reason why researchers in that country want to develop diagnostic assays for cancer and other diseases that are faster, cheaper, and comparable to a human pathologist in accuracy.
Discovery highlights how ongoing microbiome research points to new opportunities that can lead to development of more effective cancer screening clinical laboratory tests
New research from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle once again demonstrates that the human microbiome plays a sophisticated role in many biological processes. Microbiologists and anatomic pathologists who diagnose tissue/biopsies will find this study’s findings intriguing.
This breakthrough in colon cancer research came from the discovery that a “subspecies” of a common type of a bacteria that resides in the mouth and causes dental plaque also “shields tumor cells from cancer treatment,” according to NBC News.
The scientists inspected colorectal cancer (CRC) tumors and found that 50% of those examined featured a subspecies of Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum or Fn) and that this anaerobic bacterium was “shielding tumor cells from cancer-fighting drugs,” NBC News noted. Many of these tumors were considered aggressive cases of cancer.
“The discovery, experts say, could pave the way for new treatments and possibly new methods of screening,” NBC News reported.
“Patients who have high levels of this bacteria in their colorectal tumors have a far worse prognosis,” Susan Bullman, PhD (above), who jointly supervised the Fred Hutch research team and who is now Associate Professor of Immunology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, told NBC News. “They don’t respond as well to chemotherapy, and they have an increased risk of recurrence,” she added. Microbiologists and clinical laboratories working with oncologists on cancer treatments will want to follow this research as it may lead to new methods for screening cancer patients. (Photo copyright: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center.)
Developing Effective Treatments
Susan Bullman, PhD, Associate Professor of Immunology at MD Anderson Cancer Center, who along with her husband and fellow researcher Christopher D. Johnston, PhD, Assistant Professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, jointly supervised an international team of scientists that examined the genomes of 80 F. nucleatum strains from the mouths of cancer-free patients and 55 strains from tumors in patients with colorectal cancer, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH funded the research.
The researchers targeted a subspecies of F. nucleatum called F. nucleatum animalis (Fna) that “was more likely to be present in colorectal tumors. Further analyses revealed that there were two distinct types of Fna. Both were present in mouths, but only one type, called Fna C2, was associated with colorectal cancer” the NIH wrote in an article on its website titled, “Gum Disease-related Bacteria Tied to Colorectal Cancer.”
“Tumor-isolated strains predominantly belong to Fn subspecies animalis (Fna). However, genomic analyses reveal that Fna, considered a single subspecies, is instead composed of two distinct clades (Fna C1 and Fna C2). Of these, only Fna C2 dominates the CRC tumor niche,” the Fred Hutch researchers wrote in their Nature paper.
“We have pinpointed the exact bacterial lineage that is associated with colorectal cancer, and that knowledge is critical for developing effective preventive and treatment methods,” Johnston told the NIH.
How Bacteria Got from Mouth to Colon Not Fully Understood
Traditionally, F. nucleatum makes its home in the mouth in minute quantities. Thus, it is not fully understood how these bacteria travel from the mouth to the colon. However, the Fred Hutch researchers showed that Fna C2 could survive in acidic conditions, like those found in the gut, longer than the other types of Fna. This suggests that the bacteria may travel along a direct route through the digestive tract.
The study, which focused on participants over 50, comes at a time when colorectal cancer rates are trending upward. Rates are doubling for those under 55, jumping from 11% in 1995 to 20% in 2019. CRC is the second-leading cancer death and over 53,000 will succumb to the disease in 2024, according to NBC News.
Many of the newer diagnoses are in later stages with no clear reason why, and the Fred Hutch scientists are trying to understand how their findings tie into the increase of younger cases of colon cancer.
Bullman says it will be important to look at “whether there are elevated levels of this bacterium in young onset colorectal cancer, which is on the rise globally for unknown reasons,” she told NBC News.
Possibility of More Effective Cancer Screening
There is hope that scientists equipped with this knowledge can develop new and more effective screening and treatment options for colon cancer, as well as studying the microbiome’s impact on other diseases.
On the prevention side, researchers have seen that in mice the addition of Fna “appeared to cause precancerous polyps to form, one of the first warning signs of colorectal cancer, though Bullman added that this causation hasn’t yet been proven in humans.” NBC reported.
Future research may find that screening for Fna could determine if colorectal tumors will be aggressive, NIH reported.
“It’s possible that scientists could identify the subspecies while it’s still in the mouth and give a person antibiotics at that point, wiping it out before it could travel to the colon,” Bullman told NBC News. “Even if antibiotics can’t successfully eliminate the bacteria from the mouth, its presence there could serve as an indication that someone is at higher risk for aggressive colon cancer.”
There is also the thought of developing antibiotics to target a specific subtype of bacteria. Doing so would eliminate the need to be “wiping out both forms of the bacteria or all of the bacteria in the mouth. Further, it’s relevant to consider the possibility of harnessing the bacteria to do the cancer-fighting work,” NBC noted.
“The subtype has already proven that it can enter cancer cells quite easily, so it might be possible to genetically modify the bacteria to carry cancer-fighting drugs directly into the tumors,” Bullman told NBC News.
Further studies and research are needed. However, the Fred Hutch researchers’ findings highlight the sophistication of the human microbiome and hint at the potential role it can play in the diagnosis of cancer by clinical laboratories and pathology groups, along with better cancer treatments in the future.
Accurate blood-based clinical laboratory testing for cancer promises to encourage more people to undergo early screening for deadly diseases
One holy grail in diagnostics is to develop less-invasive specimen types when screening or testing for different cancers. This is the motivation behind the creation of a new assay for colorectal (colon) cancer that uses a blood sample and that could be offered by clinical laboratories. The data on this assay and its performance was featured in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM).
The company developing this new test recognized that more than 50,000 people will die in 2024 from colon cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. That’s primarily because people do not like colonoscopies even though the procedure can detect cancer in its early stages. Similarly, patients tend to find collecting their own fecal samples for colon cancer screening tests to be unpleasant.
But the clinical laboratory blood test for cancer screening developed by Guardant Health may make diagnosing the deadly disease less invasive and save lives. The test “detects 83% of people with colorectal cancer with specificity of 90%,” a company press release noted.
“Early detection could prevent more than 90% of colorectal cancer-related deaths, yet more than one third of the screening-eligible population is not up to date with screening despite multiple available tests. A blood-based test has the potential to improve screening adherence, detect colorectal cancer earlier, and reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality,” the study authors wrote in the NEJM.
As noted above, this is the latest example of test developers working to develop clinical laboratory tests that are less invasive for patients, while equaling or exceeding the sensitivity and specificity of existing diagnostic assays for certain health conditions.
“I do think having a blood draw versus undergoing an invasive test will reach more people, My hope is that with more tools we can reach more people,” Barbara H. Jung, MD (above), President of the American Gastroenterological Association, told NPR. Clinical laboratory blood tests for cancer may encourage people who do not like colonoscopies to get regular screening. (Photo copyright: American Gastroenterology Association.)
Developing the Shield Blood Test
Colorectal cancer is the “third most common cancer among men and women in the US,” according to the American Gastrological Association (AGA). And yet, millions of people do not get regular screening for the disease.
To prove their Shield blood test, Guardant Health, a precision oncology company based in Redwood City, Calif., enrolled more than 20,000 patients between the ages of 45-84 from across the US in a prospective, multi-site registrational study called ECLIPSE (Evaluation of ctDNA LUNAR Assay In an Average Patient Screening Episode).
“We assessed the performance characteristics of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The coprimary outcomes were sensitivity for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) relative to screening colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions,” the study authors wrote in the NEJM.
In March, Guardant completed clinical trials of its Shield blood test for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) in men and women. According to the company press release, the test demonstrated:
83% sensitivity in detecting individuals with CRC.
88% sensitivity in detecting pathology-confirmed Stages I-III.
Additionally, the Shield test showed sensitivity by stage of:
65% for pathology-confirmed Stage I,
55% for clinical Stage I,
100% for Stage II, and
100% for Stage III.
“The results of the study are a promising step toward developing more convenient tools to detect colorectal cancer early while it is more easily treated,” said molecular biologist and gastroenterologist William M. Grady, MD, Medical Director, Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Program at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and corresponding author of the ECLIPSE study in the press release. “The test, which has an accuracy rate for colon cancer detection similar to stool tests used for early detection of cancer, could offer an alternative for patients who may otherwise decline current screening options.”
Are Colonoscopies Still Needed?
“More than three out of four Americans who die from colorectal cancer are not up to date with their recommended screening, highlighting the need for a more convenient and less invasive screening method that can overcome barriers associated with traditional options,” Daniel Chung, MD, gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in the Guardant press release.
Barbara H. Jung, MD, President of the American Gastroenterological Association, says that even if Guardant’s Shield test makes it to the public the “dreaded colonoscopy” will still be needed because the procedure is used to locate and test polyps. “And when you find those you can also remove them, which in turn prevents the cancer from forming,” she told NPR.
There is hope that less invasive clinical laboratory testing will encourage more individuals to get screened for cancer earlier and regularly, and that the shift will result in a reduction in cancer rates.
“Colorectal cancer is highly treatable if caught in the early stages,” said Chris Evans, President of the Colon Cancer Coalition, in the Guardant press release.
Guardant Health’s ECLIPSE study is a prime example of the push clinical laboratory test developers are making to create user-friendly test options that make it easier for patients to follow through with regular screening for early detection of diseases. It echoes a larger effort in the medical community to think outside the box and come up with creative solutions to reach wider audiences in the name of prevention.
Best of all, the researchers say the test could provide an inexpensive means of early diagnosis. This assay could also be used to monitor how well patients respond to cancer therapy, according to a news release.
The protein had previously been identified as a promising biomarker and is readily detectable in tumor tissue, they wrote. However, it is found in extremely low concentrations in blood plasma and is “well below detection limits of conventional clinical laboratory methods,” they noted.
To overcome that obstacle, they employed an ultra-sensitive immunoassay known as a Simoa (Single-Molecule Array), an immunoassay platform for measuring fluid biomarkers.
“We were shocked by how well this test worked in detecting the biomarker’s expression across cancer types,” said lead study author gastroenterologist Martin Taylor, MD, PhD, Instructor in Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, in the press release. “It’s created more questions for us to explore and sparked interest among collaborators across many institutions.”
“We’ve known since the 1980s that transposable elements were active in some cancers, and nearly 10 years ago we reported that ORF1p was a pervasive cancer biomarker, but, until now, we haven’t had the ability to detect it in blood tests,” said pathologist and study co-author Kathleen Burns, MD, PhD (above), Chair of the Department of Pathology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School, in a press release. “Having a technology capable of detecting ORF1p in blood opens so many possibilities for clinical applications.” Clinical laboratories may soon have a new blood test to detect multiple types of cancer. (Photo copyright: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.)
Simoa’s Advantages
In their press release, the researchers described ORF1p as “a hallmark of many cancers, particularly p53-deficient epithelial cancers,” a category that includes lung, breast, prostate, uterine, pancreatic, and head and neck cancers in addition to the cancers noted above.
“Pervasive expression of ORF1p in carcinomas, and the lack of expression in normal tissues, makes ORF1p unlike other protein biomarkers which have normal expression levels,” Taylor said in the press release. “This unique biology makes it highly specific.”
Simoa was developed at the laboratory of study co-author David R. Walt, PhD, the Hansjörg Wyss Professor of Bioinspired Engineering at Harvard Medical School, and Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
The Simoa technology “enables 100- to 1,000-fold improvements in sensitivity over conventional enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) techniques, thus opening the window to measuring proteins at concentrations that have never been detected before in various biological fluids such as plasma or saliva,” according to the Walt Lab website.
Simoa assays take less than two hours to run and require less than $3 in consumables. They are “simple to perform, scalable, and have clinical-grade coefficients of variation,” the researchers wrote.
Study Results
Using the first generation of the ORF1p Simoa assay, the researchers tested blood samples of patients with a variety of cancers along with 406 individuals, regarded as healthy, who served as controls. The test proved to be most effective among patients with colorectal and ovarian cancer, finding detectable levels of ORF1p in 58% of former and 71% of the latter. Detectable levels were found in patients with advanced-stage as well as early-stage disease, the researchers wrote in Cancer Discovery.
Among the 406 healthy controls, the test found detectable levels of ORF1p in only five. However, the control with the highest detectable levels, regarded as healthy when donating blood, “was six months later found to have prostate cancer and 19 months later found to have lymphoma,” the researchers wrote.
They later reengineered the Simoa assay to increase its sensitivity, resulting in improved detection of the protein in blood samples from patients with colorectal, gastroesophageal, ovarian, uterine, and breast cancers.
The researchers also employed the test on samples from 19 patients with gastroesophageal cancer to gauge its utility for monitoring therapeutic response. Although this was a small sample, they found that among 13 patients who had responded to therapy, “circulating ORF1p dropped to undetectable levels at follow-up sampling.”
“More Work to Be Done”
The Simoa assay has limitations, the researchers acknowledged. It doesn’t identify the location of cancers, and it “isn’t successful in identifying all cancers and their subtypes,” the press release stated, adding that the test will likely be used in conjunction with other early-detection approaches. The researchers also said they want to gauge the test’s accuracy in larger cohorts.
“The test is very specific, but it doesn’t tell us enough information to be used in a vacuum,” Walt said in the news release. “It’s exciting to see the early success of this ultrasensitive assessment tool, but there is more work to be done.”
More studies will be needed to valid these findings. That this promising new multi-cancer immunoassay is based on a clinical laboratory blood sample means its less invasive and less painful for patients. It’s a good example of an assay that takes a proteomic approach looking for protein cancer biomarkers rather than the genetic approach looking for molecular DNA/RNA biomarkers of cancer.
Norwegian researchers reviewed large clinical trials of six common cancer screenings, including clinical laboratory tests, but some experts question the findings
Cancer screenings are a critical tool for diagnosis and treatment. But how much do they actually extend the lives of patients? According to researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway, not by much. They recently conducted a review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term clinical trials, five of the six most commonly used types of cancer screening—including two clinical laboratory tests—and found that with few exceptions, the screenings did not significantly extend lifespans.
The 18 long-term clinical trials included in the study were randomized trials that collectively included a total of 2.1 million participants. Median follow-up periods of 10 to 15 years were used to gauge estimated lifetime gain and mortality.
“The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy,” the researchers wrote in their published paper.
The researchers noted, however, that their analysis does not suggest all screenings should be abandoned. They also acknowledged that some lives are saved by screenings.
“Without screening, these patients may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage,” the scientists wrote, MedPage Today reported. “Thus, these patients experience a gain in lifetime.”
Still, some independent experts questioned the validity of the findings.
Gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD (above), a professor at the University of Oslo in Norway led the research into cancer screenings. In their JAMA Internal Medicine paper, he and his team wrote, “The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy may extend life by approximately three months; lifetime gain for other screening tests appears to be unlikely or uncertain.” How their findings might affect clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology screening for cancer remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: University of Oslo.)
Pros and Cons of Cancer Screening
The clinical trials, according to MedPage Today and Oncology Nursing News covered the following tests:
Mammography screening for breast cancer (two trials).
As reported in these trials, “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life,” the researchers wrote. “An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using computed tomography, but estimates are uncertain.”
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends certain types of screening tests to detect cancers and pre-cancers before they can spread, thus improving the chances for survival.
The ACS advises screenings for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and cervical cancer regardless of whether the individual is considered high risk. Lung cancer screenings are advised for people with a history of smoking. Men who are 45 to 50 or older should discuss the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening with their healthcare providers, the ACS states.
A CNN report about the University of Oslo study noted that the benefits and drawbacks of cancer screening have long been well known to doctors.
“Some positive screening results are false positives, which can lead to unnecessary anxiety as well as additional screening that can be expensive,” CNN reported. “Tests can also give a false negative and thus a false sense of security. Sometimes too, treatment can be unnecessary, resulting in a net harm rather than a net benefit, studies show.”
In their JAMA paper, the University of Oslo researchers wrote, “The critical question is whether the benefits for the few are sufficiently large to warrant the associated harms for many. It is entirely possible that multicancer detection blood tests do save lives and warrant the attendant costs and harms. But we will never know unless we ask,” CNN reported.
Hidden Impact on Cancer Mortality
ACS Chief Scientific Officer William Dahut, MD, told CNN that screenings may have an impact on cancer mortality in ways that might not be apparent from randomized trials. He noted that there’s been a decline in deaths from cervical cancer and prostate cancer since doctors began advising routine testing.
“Cancer screening was never really designed to increase longevity,” Dahut said. “Screenings are really designed to decrease premature deaths from cancer.” For example, “if a person’s life expectancy at birth was 80, a cancer screening may prevent their premature death at 65, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d live to be 90 instead of the predicted 80,” CNN reported.
Dahut told CNN that fully assessing the impact of cancer screenings on life expectancy would require a clinical trial larger than those in the new study, and one that followed patients “for a very long time.”
“From its title, one would have expected this paper to be based on analysis of individual lifetime data. However, it is not,” he wrote in a compilation of expert commentary from the UK’s Science Media Center. “The paper’s conclusions are based on arithmetic manipulation of relative rates of all-cause mortality in some of the screening trials. It is therefore difficult to give credence to the claim that screening largely does not extend expected lifetime.”
He also questioned the inclusion of one particular trial in the University of Oslo study—the Canadian National Breast Screening Study—“as there is now public domain evidence of subversion of the randomization in this trial,” he added.
Another expert, Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter in the UK, described the University of Oslo study as “methodologically sound with some limitations which the authors clearly state.”
But he observed that “the focus on 2.1 million individuals is slightly misleading. The study considered many different screening tests and 2.1 million was indeed the total number of included patients, however, no calculation included that many people.”
Jackson also characterized the length of follow-up as a limitation. “This may have limited the amount of data included and also not considering longer follow-up may tend to underestimate the effects of screening,” he said.
This published study—along with the range of credible criticisms offered by other scientists—demonstrates how analysis of huge volumes of data is making it possible to tease out useful new insights. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect to see other examples of researchers assembling large quantities of data across different areas of medicine. This huge pools of data will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of many medical procedures that have been performed for years with a belief that they are helpful.
