| Last year, my primary care physician tried to sell me on Grail’s cancer-detecting blood test. |
| As I approached my 30th birthday, I wanted to start taking better care of my health. A friend recommended a doctor in Manhattan. |
| The physical started the same way most do: We went over my medical history and talked about health goals. In particular, I have an extensive family history of cancer: one parent, three of four grandparents, plus several extended family members. I’m basically expecting to get a diagnosis at some point in my life. |
| My doctor agreed. Then he told me about a new blood test called Galleri that could detect cancer early. The future of cancer screening, he said, would center around tests like Galleri. Given my family history, it could be useful to take a test that screens for cancer cells in the blood even before symptoms appear. "You’re the first person I’ve actually recommended this test for this year," I remember him telling me. I don’t recall him saying how much the test would cost, but the self-pay price is $949. Most insurers don’t cover it. |
| I knew a little about Galleri, thanks to Endpoints News’ coverage of Grail. It sells Galleri as a laboratory developed test that doesn't need FDA clearance, but it still felt premature to market to me while it’s still under scientific debate. (In January,
Grail filed for FDA approval.) So why was my doctor pushing it? |
| At the time of my appointment last July, the data seemed promising but early. A 2024 press release from the UK’s National Health Service said it would wait until a larger trial read out before it agreed to offer the test. I showed the press release to my doctor, who dismissed it. |
| Unconvinced, I said I would think about it, but wasn’t ready to commit just yet. We moved on to the rest of the physical. |
| Last week, Grail revealed the data for that larger trial. The randomized study, which enrolled more than 142,000 people aged 50 to 77 in the UK, failed to reduce stage 3-4 cancers by shifting diagnosis earlier. |
| The company did say it found a "favorable trend" in detecting a group of 12 high-mortality stage 4 cancers, where diagnoses declined after multiple rounds of testing, suggesting the test caught instances of cancer at earlier stages. Grail plans to keep following the patients who have already taken the test to see if that pattern becomes stronger. |
| In an emailed statement to Endpoints, a Grail spokesperson said the company aims to inform doctors of all the "test risks, benefits, limitations, study data, and indications" associated with the Galleri tests — especially in the case of false negatives or false positives. Grail also offers "education materials" that include "how to interpret and manage" Galleri test results. |
| But that silver lining pales in comparison to the transformation in cancer screening both Grail and my doctor promised. |
| Consumers, driven by the limitations that exist in healthcare, are becoming more active participants of the system, willing to pay directly for the care they want. Companies like Hims — which is working with Grail to put its cancer test on its platform — are investing more in preventive care options. Startups are building big businesses offering cash prices for hundreds of lab tests and whole body MRIs. Even AI giants like OpenAI are building products for people to input their health information to make more sense of it. |
| But we’re in turn asking consumers like me to make decisions about these prevention and wellness options without the best evidence in hand. Look no further than the Super Bowl, where Hims advertised the test to one of the biggest TV audiences ever. Giving patients more treatment options is a good thing, but those options should come with full and
complete information. |
| Three months after my appointment, my doctor transitioned to concierge care. I’ll be looking for a new primary care doctor, and maybe enlist a specialist or two who can help with preventive cancer screening more adeptly. |
| - Max Gelman |
