Latest news with #Galleri
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Q1 2025 Grail Inc Earnings Call
Harpal Kumar; President Biopharma & Europe; Grail Inc Joshua Ofman; President; Grail Inc Aaron Freidin; Chief Financial Officer; Grail Inc Robert Ragusa; Chief Executive Officer; Grail Inc Subbu Nambi; Analyst; Guggenheim Partners Tejas Savant; Analyst; Morgan Stanley Doug Schenkel; Analyst; Wolfe Research Kyle Mikson; Analyst; Canaccord Genuity Harpal Kumar (technical difficulty)-- performance of Galleri. As a reminder, Galleri demonstrated specificity of 99.5% and a CSO accuracy of 88% in Pathfinder. There were no serious safety concerns in the NHS Galleri prevalent screening round. As Bob mentioned, the top line results from the prevalent screening round of the NHS Galleri trial are very of all the three years of the trial are expected in mid 2026. These longitudinal results will be the first clinical utility results of their kind in the MCED field. The NHS Galleri trial was designed as three annual blood draws plus 12 months of follow-up in order to evaluate Galleri's ability to diagnose cancer at an earlier stage relative to standard of care. Cancer screening trials designed to show clinical utility are commonly conducted over three or more years using an annual screening if screening is only conducted once, results can be influenced by the fact that the first screening round detects many prevalent late-stage asymptomatic cancers that have not yet been diagnosed. This and other factors are likely to cause final results of the three-year trial to differ from a review of the first round results. NHS Galleri is the largest and only randomized control trial of any MCED test, and the results thus far demonstrate strong Galleri with England's NHS, we expect to publish detailed data from the ongoing NHS Galleri trial, including the primary endpoint of an absolute reduction in the number of stage three and four cancer diagnoses as well as a number of test performance secondary endpoints, including episode sensitivity in mid with that, I'll now hand over to Josh. Joshua Ofman At GRAIL, we have implemented one of the largest clinical evidence programs in the MCED space, with more than 385,000 participants than 21,000 participants were included in the studies to support the development and launch of Galleri, and over 170,000 individuals are included in our registrational studies which support our PMA submission to the let's be clear, Galleri is working in the real world. We are detecting clinically meaningful cancers and early-stage cancers in asymptomatic adults. Our signal detection rate in commercial use is very much in line with what we expected based on our prior clinical studies. The majority of the early-stage cancers Galleri has found are in cancer types where a recommended screening test does not even exist, thereby allowing patients an opportunity to access more effective and even curative we've described over time the key performance metrics, features and capabilities for multi-cancer early detection tests, which importantly are quite different from those for single cancer screenings. Positive predictive value or PPV is a key metric which discerns among positive test results how many are true critically important, defines the false positive rate. A very low false positive rate helps reduce unnecessary workups and their associated costs and contributes to driving a high positive predictive value. Our demonstrated specificity at 99.5% equates to a false positive rate of 0.5%. So just to remind you, a 1% reduction in specificity to 98.5%, that is a 0.5% false positive rate, would then become a 1.5% false positive rate three times applying this to a real-world population of a million people tested, instead of there being only 5,000 false positives, there would now be 15,000. Such a reduced specificity would be expected also to result in a positive predictive value, about half of what we see at a specificity of 99.5% holding all other metrics one of the most important features of a multi-cancer early detection test is the ability to localize that cancer signal. In multi-cancer early detection, CSO capability or a cancer signal of origin prediction, is the key to guiding physicians to an appropriate and efficient workup to diagnosis. We consistently hear from physicians in the field that this is a critical component of any multi-cancer screening an FDA advisory committee on multi-cancer detection in November '23 similarly emphasized the importance of a cancer signal of origin feature in any multi-cancer detection teams have continued to present evidence demonstrating Galleri's performance at renowned medical conferences. In April, at the AACR meeting, we shared a real world data set on Galleri's test performance and implementation in over 100,000 individuals. Galleri indeed identified cancers across this large intended use population, including early-stage cancers, and cancers without recommended the test performance in this real-world setting remained consistent with what we've consistently observed in our prior clinical studies. Among other data we also presented at AACR in analysis highlighting the importance of annual screening with an MCED test, model data of post-test probabilities of cancers for individuals receiving MCED tests showed that individuals receiving a negative MCED test, and they have a reduced risk of late-stage cancer diagnosis for one year after the blood draw. And then this risk increases as the screening interval extends beyond one year. This study really supports the need for annual I'd like to highlight that US health systems are now publishing their own experiences with Galleri performance and implementation. A paper authored by the Mayo Clinic and published recently in March in the Journal of Primary Care and Community Health showed that Galleri effectively detected cancers in an asymptomatic population within their healthcare system and had a 73% positive predictive value. In other words, 73% of those with a positive Galleri test yielded a confirmed new cancer the sample in this Mayo Clinic analysis was relatively small and had some different patient demographics compared to our prior trials. Importantly, this paper included the Mayo Clinic's standardized approach to pursue a diagnostic workup following a positive cancer signal and our signal of origin outline steps are informed by a multidisciplinary expert counsel convened by the Mayo Clinic. Then they reviewed our cancel signal of origin prediction and other data from our first Pathfinder trial. These recommendations continue to be updated, and they've really served as a centralized resource for the Mayo Clinic additional health systems and clinicians are beginning to publish their experience with Galleri. Upcoming ASCO 2025 presentations of note include the implementation and evaluation of multi-cancer early detection testing at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and diagnostic pathways. And an independent analysis by Alabama Cancer Care, titled A Clinical Review of a Novel Blood Test Use in Rural Alabama for Multi-cancer Detection Analyzing methylation patterns of Cell-free DNA and Future looking forward, we anticipate performance data from the first 25,000 participants in our other registrational study, Pathfinder 2, later this year. We also plan to conduct a bridging study between the version of Galleri used in our registrational trials, NHS Galleri and Pathfinder 2, to the updated version that we plan to submit to the FDA for pre-market approval. We plan to submit data from the prevalent screening round of the NHS Galleri trial. The first 25,000 participants in the Pathfinder II study and the bridging study as part of our pre-market approval application in the first half of '26.I'll now hand it over to Aaron for a review of our financials. Aaron Freidin Thanks, Josh, and good afternoon, everyone. I'm pleased to present our results for the first quarter. First quarter results were strong, with revenue of $31.8 million up $5.1 million or 19% as compared to the first quarter of revenue for the quarter is comprised of $29.1 million of screening revenue and $2.7 million of development service revenue. Development services revenue includes services we provide to biopharmaceutical and clinical customers, including support of clinical studies, pilot testing, research, and therapy see continued demand for our Galleri test, and sold more than 37,000 tests in the first quarter, a period we have observed historically to be softer relative to the fourth quarter. Repeat test volumes have moved higher over time, including in early 2025. More than 20% of Galleri volume today is repeat testing. Screening revenue of $29.1 million in the first quarter was up 24% as compared with the first quarter of Galleri revenue was $28.7 million up 22% compared to the first quarter full year guidance we shared in January of US Galleri revenue growth of 20% to 30%. We do not expect major impacts from tariffs on our current business as our laboratory is located in the US and a significant majority of our suppliers are located in and manufactured in the loss for the quarter was $106.2 million an improvement of 51% as compared to the first quarter of 2024. And included amortization of intangible assets of $34.6 million and stock-based compensation of $16.2 adjusted gross profit for the first quarter of 2025 was $14.3 million, an increase of $2.3 million or 19% as compared to the first quarter of 2024. We ended the quarter with a cash position of $677.9 million. In January, we guided that we expect cash burn for the full-year 2025 to be no more than $320 million. This represents a decrease of more than 40% compared to 2024. Our cash runway extends into 2028, enabling us to achieve major planned clinical and regulatory milestones. Robert Ragusa Thank you, Aaron. To close, we remain encouraged by the demand we are seeing today while we advance towards major milestones, seeking FDA approval of Galleri and pursuing broad are very pleased to have taken additional strides in early 2025, including executing on the transition to the enhanced, more scalable version of Galleri, achieving Tricare coverage, and enabling easier access to Galleri ordering through Quest Diagnostics and Athena ahead, we expect to share interim data from Pathfinder to study in late 2025, that the data set will include the first 25,000 of the 35,000 participants enrolled. In 2026, key milestones include the completion of our modular PMA submission to the FDA in the first half and final results from our 140,000 participant NHS Galleri that will turn the call over to Q&A operator, please go ahead. Operator (Operator Instructions)Subbu Nambi, Guggenheim Partners. Subbu Nambi Hey, guys. Thank you for taking my question. My first question is back in December, the new version of Galleri was starting to be offered with expected short term variable cost improvement. Can you quantify what those were in the quarter and what should be -- Aaron Freidin Yeah, so as you said, we did launch at the end of last year. This year, the first quarter we're on that new version, and we'd expect to see margins continue to improve over the rest of the year as we increase scale and just work through the launch transition that we're going through this quarter. As you said, you'll see those variable COGS and improvements come over time as we move everything over to that, the new version completely. Subbu Nambi Got it. And then, when setting guidance, you said you considered Quest and said legislation and Tricare approval. How have those played out to your expectations in 1Q and then is there any upside from here more than what you expected? Robert Ragusa Yeah, so, early days on both Quests as well as Tricare, so we are seeing improved ordering from Quest providers that are going through the Quest portal. So that's very encouraging, but again, early days on that and Tricare, we're working through the contracting process. So we're we're in coverage with Tricare, but working through the coverage process process with the various contractors there. So more to come on that later in the year. Subbu Nambi Got it. Thank you, guys. Operator Tejas Savant, Morgan Stanley. Tejas Savant So maybe, just one on the cash born in the quarter, I guess, can you help us just think about the burn trajectory over the course of the next, between now and your end, how you're tracking towards that sort of $320 million or less than born target that you guys had?And then second, on sort of a related note, you we've got a couple of, other MCED launches coming up here, including one from, an established brand in single cancer screening. So how are you thinking about your OpEx levels, which you've done a good job sort of controlling, so as to keep the burn down? You need to sort of, think about re-accelerating it a little bit as as some of those other offerings. Aaron Freidin Yeah, on the cash burn, so I think we burn just under $90 million first quarters, the period that we pay out our annual bonus from the prior year, which is something of course not going to repeat in the future quarters. And also as we talked about margins, just the last question, as we grow more and as margins improve, the cash burden will be in the $320 million range that we gave. Robert Ragusa OpEx and competitors, so it's good actually to see, others investing in multi cancer early detection. As we, I think we've noted on this call where we've been doing all the heavy lifting in terms of really educating the field of developing the market. We've made unprecedented investments though to set a very high bar for the field and demonstrated a really strong specifications based on that. And so we'll have to take a look and see, from the announcements, what actually transpires in terms of actual competitive approaches to see if that's going to have any OpEx impacts on us. So right now, I would say it's not clear that we have OpEx impacts from those launches, but something we'll monitor over the next couple quarters. Tejas Savant Got it, fair enough. And then a couple of quick cleanups on the data side, guys. So the intervention arm, from the NHS Galleri, that data that you just shared, how should we be thinking about the read across from that your, next year's final NHS Galleri readout, like, particularly in terms of that higher PPV you highlighted? And can you put a finer point on, when in the second half of the year we can expect Pathfinder 2 data? Robert Ragusa Yeah, so on the second question, really looking to mid mid next year to have the readout on the full three-year study. We also have Harpal on the call today, so Harpal may be answering the first part of that question. Harpal Kumar Yeah, sure, thank you for the question. So look, it's important just to reiterate that the results we've shared today are from the first screening round only. And as we've tried to describe, it's really important that the first round of a screening program, what you typically see is that you are finding a lot of prevalent cancers in the population that have not yet been are asymptomatic, but they can often be very late stage. And so as we go through to the second and third rounds, and those prevalent cancers in the population have already been diagnosed, we would expect to see some differences in the second and third round as indeed has other screening programs in the past. But we're not in a position today to be able to predict what those results will be, but we will have those results in mid '26. Operator Doug Schenkel, Wolfe Research. Doug Schenkel Hey, good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for taking my questions. I want to talk about two things, the BMJ publication, and then I want to talk about your cash management strategy, which, is obviously top of mind for a lot of starting on the BMJ publication. As you talked about in your prepared remarks, you demonstrated that annual MCED screening shows a higher projected impact on stage shift and mortality reduction relative to biennial testing. So keeping that in mind and then also the fact that you've indicated that based on draft MCED legislation that you would assume that ASPs would land in the 500 to 550 level, my questions are, do you believe that the ASP would be unaffected by testing interval, meaning if there's more frequent testing, does the ASP need to come down?And then the second part of the question is, when you think about the cost to the system, if there was broad adoption of Galleri at that pricing level, how -- and then you think about by extension how much it would cost to find a single cancer. If we think about the cost for cancer detected, including subsequent workups and even a small number of false positives, would there be any concern in that scenario about the health economics, especially again for an annual test? Robert Ragusa Josh, you want to take that one? Joshua Ofman Sure. So I think as you noted, we have a lot of data to suggest that based on cancer biology, Galleri should be administered on an annual basis, if we want to find early-stage asymptomatic cancer based on the rates with which cancers are progressing, given everything we know, on the biology of circulating DNA we think that's the right way to go, and all of our pricing strategies and everything we've projected about ASP are based on annual testing. So it's really too early to speculate on what would happen if we tested more frequently than that. From the health economic perspective, Doug, it's a great question. We know that with annual testing, even if populations scale, at the prices that are in the market today, let alone the lower ASPs that you're commenting on, this is a highly cost-effective compared to what we're spending today to diagnose a cancer, given everything that's going on with the false positive rates of current single cancer screening, that the cost to diagnose a cancer with an MCED added to standard of care screening comes down substantially. And the numbers needed to screen are much lower than what we've seen traditionally with some of the single cancer screening tests. So even today, the health economic data are very compelling from an efficiency and cost-effectiveness perspective to payers by screening the population for any disease, but it's high value investment. Doug Schenkel Okay, thank you for that. Good food for thought. So the second topic is on cash management. And just keeping in mind your stock, at least last I checked is up, about 140% year-to-date. There are obviously questions about your ability to fund operations through the period where you would plausibly get FDA approval and CMS reimbursement, and again, acknowledging you guys are doing a good job moving towards, trying to extend the runway as long as are still concerns you can get there, especially given where we are with the MCED bill and, the path to FDA reimbursement and the approval and CMS reimbursement. So in a best case, recognizing those developments are several years away and also recognizing the NHS Galleri readout, which is pretty critical, doesn't read out until next year. And at that point, your cash position's going to be below half of what it is today, things start to get a little bit what was the calculus given all of these facts at the board level behind not raising money to de-risk the outlook? It seems like that would have been allow you to maybe play offense a little more aggressively, and to make the NH NHS read out like next year less binary. So simply put, what's the thinking here? What's the rationale to not take some steps? What are we missing? Robert Ragusa Doug, it's a good question. It's something we've obviously thought about. As we've said in, previous discussions, we think that getting through some of these milestones derisks the business and creates value for us. And so, in the calculus, we're looking at, getting through some of these major milestones and knowing that we have the cash runway to get through those was kind of the deciding factor towards waiting until things play out a little obviously, the stock as you mentioned, the stock is up a bit. That actually pushes more in the favor of being able to do something. But we still feel we have, substantial cash runway and we have relatively near-term milestones that will be value creating. Aaron, anything? Aaron Freidin I will just add, I mean, we're less than a year out from our spin as well. We've got just about $700 million on our balance sheet. So Doug, I think it's something that we're going to continue to look at and work about work on and think about with our board. So it's on our minds, but we're in a good position now in our view. Operator Kyle Mikson, Canaccord. Kyle Mikson Thanks guys for the questions. Just on NHS first, just given the data here and the partnership and the study, keep progressing, how are the recent conversations with NHS going and do you, what do you expect they're going to do, I guess, with Galleri commercialization in the country of following the full readout in 2026?And then secondly, for maybe Harpal, on the PPV for the subset here that you provided, is that like a modeled number or is that like a concrete metric? I just want to kind of understand. If it's like how the number should be used and it's like how much materially higher it is compared to like Pathfinder, for example? Thanks. Harpal Kumar Thanks, Kyle. So let me quickly take the second question first. So when we say the PPV was substantially higher in the first round, that's a concrete number. We're not sharing what that number is, but we can say it's substantially higher than the 43% that we saw in Pathfinder. So it's not a model respect to the conversations with the NHS, I mean, just to say that we're in constant dialogue with the NHS and with the National Screening Committee in the UK and with the government in the UK. They are clear that they want to wait to see final results from all three rounds of the study before they will make a decision as to if and when to roll out a screening program in the UK or in England particularly. So I can't give you anything more concrete than that at this point other than to say we're in constant dialogue. Robert Ragusa They are maybe go through a little bit of the why not reveal the numbers right now. Harpal Kumar Yeah, sure. So I mean it's important to reiterate that the NHS Galleri trial was designed as a three-year screening study. In other words, we do three rounds of screening, and that's very common in screening trials and in and in studies of screening because for the reasons that I stated earlier on the call. If you only look at one round of screening, then what you'll typically find in that first round is a lot of prevalent asymptomatic cancers in the population, which can often be late stage but haven't yet been going to a second and third round, you start to see what the impact of a, if you like, a more established or steady state screening program might be. And so it's really important that we safeguard those upcoming readouts and the integrity of the trial as a whole. It's also really important that we safeguard the interests of the participants taking part in the so for all of those reasons, we're not sharing more detailed information at this stage. But we are now getting closer to having the final results middle of next year, and we look forward to sharing all of those both with all of you, but also with the NHS at that time. Kyle Mikson Great, that was super helpful. And on the topic of repeat testing, it sounds like that me remains stable. I think I heard 20%, continues. So when you think about repeat testing, what's an acceptable number at this point, do you like 20%? How do you improve the stickiness and that recurring kind of revenue stream? And then how does movement in that number affect your modeling of like ASP and customer acquisition cost over the medium term? Robert Ragusa Yeah, so first of all, we're very pleased with about 20%, given that we're generally not a reimbursed test. We think it compares very favorably to to reimbursed tests. The 20% mark, we expect to continue to be able to grow that, but we need a little more time on there are belts to figure out exactly where that's going to go. From a -- clearly, from a customer acquisition cost that certainly helps the model being able to have that repeat base, at that significant level, so that is something we are factoring in into our modeling. Operator Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call back to GRAIL for closing remarks. Robert Ragusa So thank you everyone for joining today's call. Operator Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the call. You may now disconnect. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GRAIL Inc (GRAL) Q1 2025 Earnings Call Highlights: Strong Revenue Growth and Strategic Advances
Revenue: $31.8 million, up 19% compared to Q1 2024. Screening Revenue: $29.1 million, up 24% compared to Q1 2024. Development Service Revenue: $2.7 million. US Galleri Revenue: $28.7 million, up 22% compared to Q1 2024. Net Loss: $106.2 million, an improvement of 51% compared to Q1 2024. Non-GAAP Adjusted Gross Profit: $14.3 million, up 19% compared to Q1 2024. Cash Position: $677.9 million at the end of the quarter. Galleri Tests Sold: More than 37,000 tests in Q1 2025. Repeat Testing: More than 20% of Galleri volume is repeat testing. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 4 Warning Signs with GRAL. Release Date: May 13, 2025 For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. GRAIL Inc (NASDAQ:GRAL) reported a strong first quarter with revenue of $31.8 million, marking a 19% increase compared to the first quarter of 2024. The Galleri test demonstrated a specificity of 99.5%, equating to a low false positive rate of 0.5%, which is crucial for reducing unnecessary workups and costs. The NHS Galleri trial, the largest randomized control trial of any MCED test, showed encouraging top-line results from its first screening round. GRAIL Inc (NASDAQ:GRAL) has a substantial cash position of $677.9 million, with a cash runway extending into 2028, allowing them to achieve major planned clinical and regulatory milestones. The company has achieved Tricare coverage and has made Galleri more accessible through partnerships with Quest Diagnostics and Athena Health. GRAIL Inc (NASDAQ:GRAL) reported a net loss of $106.2 million for the quarter, despite an improvement of 51% compared to the first quarter of 2024. The company is facing competition from other upcoming MCED launches, which could impact their operational expenses and market position. There are concerns about the health economics of the Galleri test, particularly regarding the cost-effectiveness of annual testing at the current ASP levels. The NHS Galleri trial results are not expected until mid-2026, which delays potential commercialization decisions in the UK. Despite a strong cash position, there are concerns about the company's ability to fund operations through the period leading up to FDA approval and CMS reimbursement. Q: Can you quantify the short-term variable cost improvements from the new version of Galleri launched in December? A: Aaron Freidin, CFO: We launched the new version at the end of last year, and in the first quarter, we expect margins to improve as we increase scale and transition fully to the new version. Variable cost improvements will become more apparent over time. Q: How have Quest and Tricare approvals impacted your expectations for the first quarter, and is there potential upside? A: Robert Ragusa, CEO: It's early days for both Quest and Tricare. We are seeing improved ordering from Quest providers, which is encouraging. For Tricare, we are working through the contracting process, and more updates will come later in the year. Q: Can you discuss the cash burn trajectory and how you're managing OpEx with upcoming MCED launches from competitors? A: Aaron Freidin, CFO: We burned just under $90 million in the first quarter, which included annual bonus payouts. As margins improve, we expect to stay within our $320 million cash burn target. Robert Ragusa, CEO: We are monitoring competitor launches but currently do not anticipate significant OpEx impacts. Q: How should we interpret the NHS Galleri trial results shared today, and when can we expect Pathfinder 2 data? A: Robert Ragusa, CEO: We expect the full three-year study results mid-next year. Harpal Kumar, President Biopharma & Europe: The first round results show prevalent cancers, often late-stage. We expect differences in subsequent rounds, with final results in mid-2026. Q: Regarding the BMJ publication, how does annual MCED screening impact health economics, and is ASP affected by testing frequency? A: Joshua Ofman, President: Annual testing is based on cancer biology and is cost-effective. Current pricing strategies assume annual testing. Health economics are favorable, with lower costs to diagnose cancer compared to single cancer screenings. For the complete transcript of the earnings call, please refer to the full earnings call transcript. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
GRAIL and athenahealth Team Up to Offer Healthcare Providers Streamlined Ordering of GRAIL's Galleri® Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Test
MENLO PARK, Calif., May 12, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- GRAIL, Inc. (Nasdaq: GRAL), a healthcare company whose mission is to detect cancer early when it can be cured, today announced a new partnership with athenahealth, a leading provider of network-enabled software and services for healthcare practices and systems nationwide. This collaboration will integrate ordering of GRAIL's Galleri® multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test into athenaCoordinator Core, a service designed to help streamline laboratory order transmission and care coordination for healthcare facilities. The integration will be provided through athenaOne, athenahealth's leading cloud-based electronic health record (EHR) solution. Integration with athenaCoordinator Core will allow over 160,000 U.S. clinicians on the athenahealth network to opt in to more seamlessly order Galleri directly in the EHR, reducing additional ordering steps. After the clinician's order is placed, the patient can take the Galleri test kit to a blood draw appointment. The Galleri test results will be made available automatically in the patient chart, reducing manual entry and administrative burden for the clinician's practice. "Cancer remains a public health crisis. There is a clear need to transform the way we screen for cancer while still asymptomatic, when it can be more easily treated," said Josh Ofman, MD, MSHS, president at GRAIL. "Integrating with athenaCoordinator Core will help simplify the Galleri test ordering process as part of routine exams and help increase patient access to multi-cancer early detection to screen for some of the deadliest cancers before they become symptomatic." Cancers growing in the body shed DNA into the bloodstream. These DNA fragments act like a unique "fingerprint" of cancer. With a single blood draw, the Galleri test screens for the "fingerprint" of many of the deadliest cancers before they become symptomatic, including those with no recommended screening tests today. It can also provide doctors with information on the cancer's origin to help predict the tissue type or organ associated with the cancer signal. The Galleri test is prescription only, recommended for adults with an elevated risk for cancer, such as those age 50 or older, and is to be used in addition to recommended cancer screenings. About GRAIL GRAIL is a healthcare company whose mission is to detect cancer early, when it can be cured. GRAIL is focused on alleviating the global burden of cancer by using the power of next-generation sequencing, population-scale clinical studies, and state-of-the-art machine learning, software, and automation to detect and identify multiple deadly cancer types in earlier stages. GRAIL's targeted methylation-based platform can support the continuum of care for screening and precision oncology, including multi-cancer early detection in symptomatic patients, risk stratification, minimal residual disease detection, biomarker subtyping, treatment and recurrence monitoring. GRAIL is headquartered in Menlo Park, CA with locations in Washington, D.C., North Carolina, and the United Kingdom. For more information, visit About Galleri®The Galleri multi-cancer early detection test is a proactive tool to screen for cancer. With a simple blood draw, the Galleri test can identify DNA shed by cancer cells, which can act as a unique "fingerprint" of cancer, to help screen for some of the deadliest cancers that don't have recommended screening today, such as pancreatic, esophageal, ovarian, liver, and others.* The Galleri test can be used to screen for cancer before a person becomes symptomatic, when cancer may be more easily treated and potentially curable. The Galleri test can indicate the origin of the cancer, giving healthcare providers a roadmap of where to explore further. The Galleri test requires a prescription from a licensed healthcare provider and should be used in addition to recommended cancer screenings such as mammography, colonoscopy, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, or cervical cancer screening. The Galleri test is recommended for adults with an elevated risk for cancer, such as those aged 50 or older. For more information, visit Sensitivity in study participants with –Pancreas cancer: 83.7% overall (61.9% stage I, 60.0% stage II, 85.7% stage III, 95.9% stage IV). Esophagus cancer 85.0% overall (12.5% stage I, 64.7% stage II, 94.7% stage III, 100% stage IV). Ovary cancer: 83.1% overall (50.0% stage I, 80.0% stage II, 87.1% stage III, 94.7% stage IV). Liver/bile duct cancer: 93.5% overall (100% stage I, 70.0% stage II, 100% stage III, 100% stage IV). Important Galleri Safety InformationThe Galleri test is recommended for use in adults with an elevated risk for cancer, such as those age 50 or older. The test does not detect all cancers and should be used in addition to routine cancer screening tests recommended by a healthcare provider. The Galleri test is intended to detect cancer signals and predict where in the body the cancer signal is located. Use of the test is not recommended in individuals who are pregnant, 21 years old or younger, or undergoing active cancer treatment. Results should be interpreted by a healthcare provider in the context of medical history, clinical signs, and symptoms. A test result of No Cancer Signal Detected does not rule out cancer. A test result of Cancer Signal Detected requires confirmatory diagnostic evaluation by medically established procedures (e.g., imaging) to confirm cancer is not confirmed with further testing, it could mean that cancer is not present or testing was insufficient to detect cancer, including due to the cancer being located in a different part of the body. False positive (a cancer signal detected when cancer is not present) and false negative (a cancer signal not detected when cancer is present) test results do occur. Rx only. Laboratory/Test InformationThe GRAIL clinical laboratory is certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) and accredited by the College of American Pathologists. The Galleri test was developed — and its performance characteristics were determined — by GRAIL. The Galleri test has not been cleared or approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The GRAIL clinical laboratory is regulated under CLIA to perform high-complexity testing. The Galleri test is intended for clinical purposes. Forward Looking StatementsThis press release contains forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as "aim," "anticipate," "believe," "continue," "could," "estimate," "expect," "intend," "may," "might," "plan," "potential," "predict," "should," "would," or "will," the negative of these terms, and other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions about us, may include expectations about or projections ease of ordering Galleri, potential increases in patient access, clinical impact, technology, clinical and real world studies, regulatory compliance, potential market opportunity, anticipated growth strategies, and other topics. These statements are only predictions based on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends. There are important factors that could cause our actual results, level of activity, performance, or achievements to differ materially and adversely from those expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including those factors and numerous associated risks discussed under the section entitled "Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2025 and our Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2024 (the "Form 10-K"). Moreover, we operate in a dynamic and rapidly changing environment. New risks emerge from time to time. It is not possible for our management to predict all risks, nor can we assess the impact of all factors on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results, level of activity, performance, or achievements to differ materially and adversely from those contained in any forward-looking statements we may make. Forward-looking statements relate to the future and, accordingly, are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks, and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of our control. Although we believe the expectations and projections expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee future results, level of activity, performance, or achievements. Our actual results and financial condition may differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Except to the extent required by law, we undertake no obligation to update any of these forward-looking statements after the date of this press release to conform our prior statements to actual results or revised expectations or to reflect new information or the occurrence of unanticipated events. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE GRAIL, Inc. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
North Wales Chronicle
09-05-2025
- Health
- North Wales Chronicle
Annual blood test for cancer ‘could stop half of cases reaching advanced stage'
Scientists are currently trying to establish whether simple blood tests are effective in picking up cancer before symptoms appear, and whether they improve survival. The NHS is currently trialling such tests, including the Galleri test and miONCO-Dx test. Experts believe a national rollout of a universal cancer screening test may be less than a decade away. Now, researchers writing in the journal BMJ Open say screening people annually – or every two years – could boost early detection and stop cancers reaching the stage where treatments fail. The experts turned to mathematical modelling to see how a multi-cancer blood test would change what happened to a group of 50 to 79-year-olds. They used both fast-growing tumours (which remain at stage I for two to four years before progressing); and fast aggressive tumours (which remain at stage I for one to two years before advancing). Cancer types studied included bladder, breast, cervical, bowel, kidney, liver and bile-duct, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, skin and blood cancers such as leukaemia. The analysis found that universal cancer screening with a blood test improved early detection compared to usual care. Yearly screening under the fast tumour growth scenario led to a higher number of diagnoses than usual care – 370 more cancer signs were detected per year per 100,000 people screened. There were also 49% fewer late-stage diagnoses and 21% fewer deaths within five years than patients receiving usual care. Screening every two years was not as effective as annual screening – 292 more cancer signs were picked up per year per 100,000 people screened compared to usual care. There were also 39% fewer late-stage diagnoses and 17% fewer deaths within five years. The researchers concluded that a blood test every one or two years has 'the potential to intercept 31–49% of cancers at stage I-II that would otherwise present at stage III-IV'. Study author Peter Sasieni, professor of cancer epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London, who has a lead role on the Galleri trial, told the PA news agency: 'I am very excited about the science behind these tests, but we need to ensure that the technological game-changer translates to clinical benefit. 'That is why we are conducting a huge randomised controlled trial to see whether the prediction made by this modelling is reasonably accurate. 'The advances in molecular biology and artificial intelligence means that we are now able to find tiny fragments of many cancers in a small blood sample. That is incredible. 'We need to show that using these tests in people without symptoms can help identify cancers earlier when they can be successfully treated, thereby preventing advanced cancer and reducing the numbers dying from cancer.' Prof Sasieni said he hopes that 'by 2032, there should be sufficient evidence to say categorically how many lives can be saved by annual screening'. He added: 'That could lead to national rollout being completed within the next 10 years.' He suggested the NHS should be able to negotiate 'a much better price per test' with manufacturers for annual screening rather than every two years. The NHS might expect an additional 15 million blood tests per year with the technology, which is around a 2.5% increase on current figures, but should not be a problem, he added. Dr David Crosby, head of prevention and early detection research at Cancer Research UK, said: 'Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are a promising area of cancer research that could help clinicians diagnose cancers earlier, potentially helping more people survive cancer and live longer, better lives. 'It is encouraging that the modelling from this research predicts that annual screening with an MCED test could reduce deaths from cancer. 'However, as with any new clinical innovation, large-scale clinical trials and independent reviews are needed to fully assess the benefits and risks of using MCED tests in the clinic. 'With many researchers and companies active in the cancer early detection space and a range of tests available, we want to see Government and NHS support for a wide range of research. 'That way, we can maximise the chances of finding tests that improve cancer outcomes and make a meaningful difference to patients.' Last month, the Department of Health announced the NHS trial of the miONCO-Dx blood test with 8,000 patients. It works by examining the microRNA in a blood sample and uses AI to identify if cancer is present and, if so, where it is located in the body. Initial tests show the test can detect up to 12 common cancers.
South Wales Guardian
09-05-2025
- Health
- South Wales Guardian
Annual blood test for cancer ‘could stop half of cases reaching advanced stage'
Scientists are currently trying to establish whether simple blood tests are effective in picking up cancer before symptoms appear, and whether they improve survival. The NHS is currently trialling such tests, including the Galleri test and miONCO-Dx test. Experts believe a national rollout of a universal cancer screening test may be less than a decade away. Now, researchers writing in the journal BMJ Open say screening people annually – or every two years – could boost early detection and stop cancers reaching the stage where treatments fail. The experts turned to mathematical modelling to see how a multi-cancer blood test would change what happened to a group of 50 to 79-year-olds. They used both fast-growing tumours (which remain at stage I for two to four years before progressing); and fast aggressive tumours (which remain at stage I for one to two years before advancing). Cancer types studied included bladder, breast, cervical, bowel, kidney, liver and bile-duct, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, skin and blood cancers such as leukaemia. The analysis found that universal cancer screening with a blood test improved early detection compared to usual care. Yearly screening under the fast tumour growth scenario led to a higher number of diagnoses than usual care – 370 more cancer signs were detected per year per 100,000 people screened. There were also 49% fewer late-stage diagnoses and 21% fewer deaths within five years than patients receiving usual care. Screening every two years was not as effective as annual screening – 292 more cancer signs were picked up per year per 100,000 people screened compared to usual care. There were also 39% fewer late-stage diagnoses and 17% fewer deaths within five years. The researchers concluded that a blood test every one or two years has 'the potential to intercept 31–49% of cancers at stage I-II that would otherwise present at stage III-IV'. Study author Peter Sasieni, professor of cancer epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London, who has a lead role on the Galleri trial, told the PA news agency: 'I am very excited about the science behind these tests, but we need to ensure that the technological game-changer translates to clinical benefit. 'That is why we are conducting a huge randomised controlled trial to see whether the prediction made by this modelling is reasonably accurate. 'The advances in molecular biology and artificial intelligence means that we are now able to find tiny fragments of many cancers in a small blood sample. That is incredible. 'We need to show that using these tests in people without symptoms can help identify cancers earlier when they can be successfully treated, thereby preventing advanced cancer and reducing the numbers dying from cancer.' Prof Sasieni said he hopes that 'by 2032, there should be sufficient evidence to say categorically how many lives can be saved by annual screening'. He added: 'That could lead to national rollout being completed within the next 10 years.' He suggested the NHS should be able to negotiate 'a much better price per test' with manufacturers for annual screening rather than every two years. The NHS might expect an additional 15 million blood tests per year with the technology, which is around a 2.5% increase on current figures, but should not be a problem, he added. Dr David Crosby, head of prevention and early detection research at Cancer Research UK, said: 'Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are a promising area of cancer research that could help clinicians diagnose cancers earlier, potentially helping more people survive cancer and live longer, better lives. 'It is encouraging that the modelling from this research predicts that annual screening with an MCED test could reduce deaths from cancer. 'However, as with any new clinical innovation, large-scale clinical trials and independent reviews are needed to fully assess the benefits and risks of using MCED tests in the clinic. 'With many researchers and companies active in the cancer early detection space and a range of tests available, we want to see Government and NHS support for a wide range of research. 'That way, we can maximise the chances of finding tests that improve cancer outcomes and make a meaningful difference to patients.' Last month, the Department of Health announced the NHS trial of the miONCO-Dx blood test with 8,000 patients. It works by examining the microRNA in a blood sample and uses AI to identify if cancer is present and, if so, where it is located in the body. Initial tests show the test can detect up to 12 common cancers.
