Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Cancer Prevention02:59

Cancer Prevention

Several factors can increase the risk of cancer in an individual. About 50% of cancer cases can be prevented by adopting a healthy lifestyle, regular exercise, eating healthy, and following a modest cancer prevention diet. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown that populations with vegetable and fruit-rich diets have reduced the incidence of cancer. On the other hand, populations who have a diet rich in animal fat, red meat, junk food, or high calories are predisposed to cancer.
Some...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Vexing Vaccine Ethics: Denying ICU Care to Vaccine Refusers.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2024
Same author

Bioethics and Public Policy: Is There Hope for Public Reason?

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2024
Same author

Public Reason, Bioethics, and Public Policy: A Seductive Delusion or Ambitious Aspiration?

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2024
Same author

Teaching Bioethics Today: Waking from Dogmatic Curricular Slumbers.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2023
Same author

Precision Medicine and Rough Justice: Wicked Problems.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2023
Same author

Abortion and "Zombie" Laws: Who Is Accountable?

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2023
Same journal

Sentience. Not Necessarily a Problem?

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2026
Same journal

No Need to Feel.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2026
Same journal

The One Health Paradigm and Wild Animal Welfare Science.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2026
Same journal

From Mollusks to Machines: An Ethical Framework Focused on the Urgency of Extreme Suffering.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2026
Same journal

Sentience and Why It Matters.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2026
Same journal

The Wrong Motives for Potentially Harming a Being.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 23, 2026

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Drug Sensitization In Vitro and In Vivo
09:19

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Drug Sensitization In Vitro and In Vivo

Published on: February 6, 2015

8.7K

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

Leonard M Fleck1

  • 1Center for Bioethics and Social Justice, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics : CQ : the International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees
|December 10, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

The Galleri test promises early cancer detection but lacks clinical validity and utility. Public funding is unaffordable and could worsen cancer care for underserved populations.

Keywords:
clinical utilityclinical validityequityhealth care justicemulti-cancer screening

More Related Videos

MicroRNA Based Liquid Biopsy: The Experience of the Plasma miRNA Signature Classifier MSC for Lung Cancer Screening
08:14

MicroRNA Based Liquid Biopsy: The Experience of the Plasma miRNA Signature Classifier MSC for Lung Cancer Screening

Published on: October 26, 2017

15.6K
Author Spotlight: Advancements in Molecular Biomarker Testing for Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
07:59

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Molecular Biomarker Testing for Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Published on: September 8, 2023

1.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 23, 2026

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Drug Sensitization In Vitro and In Vivo
09:19

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Cancer Drug Sensitization In Vitro and In Vivo

Published on: February 6, 2015

8.7K
MicroRNA Based Liquid Biopsy: The Experience of the Plasma miRNA Signature Classifier MSC for Lung Cancer Screening
08:14

MicroRNA Based Liquid Biopsy: The Experience of the Plasma miRNA Signature Classifier MSC for Lung Cancer Screening

Published on: October 26, 2017

15.6K
Author Spotlight: Advancements in Molecular Biomarker Testing for Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
07:59

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Molecular Biomarker Testing for Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Published on: September 8, 2023

1.0K

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Health Economics
  • Medical Ethics

Background:

  • Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests aim to screen for numerous cancers simultaneously.
  • The Galleri test is a prominent MCED test claiming significant benefits in lives saved and reduced healthcare costs.
  • Assessing the medical, economic, and ethical implications of widespread MCED test adoption is crucial.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the claims made for the Galleri test.
  • To assess the clinical validity and utility of the Galleri test.
  • To analyze the economic and ethical feasibility of public funding for the Galleri test.

Main Methods:

  • Critical review of existing literature and data on the Galleri test.
  • Medical assessment of diagnostic accuracy, clinical validity, and utility.
  • Economic analysis of public funding, including cost-effectiveness and opportunity costs.
  • Ethical evaluation of equity and impact on vulnerable populations.

Main Results:

  • The Galleri test currently lacks demonstrated clinical validity and clinical utility.
  • Widespread public funding of $100 billion annually for the Galleri test is deemed socially unaffordable.
  • Significant ethical and economic concerns exist regarding opportunity costs and potential exacerbation of health disparities.

Conclusions:

  • The Galleri test does not meet the criteria for clinical validity or utility.
  • Public funding for the Galleri test is not economically or ethically justifiable at this time.
  • The potential negative impact on cancer care for the least well-off necessitates careful consideration before public funding.