FDA panel splits 6-4 on whether Grail's multi-cancer blood test works
The panel was unanimous that Grail's Galleri is safe and divided six to four on whether it is effective, on evidence in which 287 of more than 35,000 people screened got a cancer signal and about 60 percent of those were diagnosed.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- An FDA advisory panel voted 10 to 0 on Wednesday that there is reasonable assurance Grail's Galleri blood test, designed to screen for multiple cancers before symptoms appear, is safe.
- The same ten-person panel split 6 to 4 on whether there is reasonable assurance the test is effective.
- On benefit-risk the panel voted 7 to 2 with one abstention that the benefits outweigh the risk for patients meeting the criteria in the proposed indication.
- A study published Tuesday in Nature Medicine covering more than 35,000 participants found cancer signals in 287 people, about 60 percent of whom were later diagnosed with cancer.
- No multi-cancer early detection test has been approved by the FDA, according to the American Cancer Society, though single-cancer screening tools are already on the market.
Why it matters
- Who's exposed exposure About one person in every 300 screened gets a signal that no diagnosis follows, and that person still gets a workup: imaging, and sometimes a biopsy.
- What it limits constraint There is no published pathway for what to do after a positive result, so each health system would write its own, and Pritchard says the research to base one on has not been done.
- Who has to decide decision The agency is not bound by the vote, so the FDA decides whether a 6-4 efficacy margin licenses the first test of its kind.
- What it sets up precedent An approval would set the evidence bar that every multi-cancer test behind Galleri gets measured against, and that bar would sit at detection.
Next story · Invest · Oct 6
Lotte Biologics wins Alvotech biosimilar work for its Syracuse plantConfirmed2 publishers
Per 1,000 people screened in Grail's study, roughly eight got a cancer signal [23]. About five of those were later diagnosed with cancer, and about three were not [25] [24]. The paper reports more than 35,000 participants, so those rates run slightly high; on the round number, the 287 positives break into about 172 diagnoses and about 115 people whose follow-up did not end in one [22].
Colin Pritchard, a professor and cancer researcher at the University of Washington, said the test may be beneficial for people at high risk of cancer, such as those with a family history, and that for people at low risk false positives could result in unnecessary harms such as expensive imaging or biopsies [17]. "More research is warranted on which populations should be offered this type of testing and on guidelines for follow up after a positive test result," Pritchard said [18].
The 6-4 efficacy vote rests on detection data [5] [8]. Detection answers a narrow question: when the test says cancer, how often is cancer there. Whether the cancer was caught early enough to matter is a separate measurement, taken years later, on stage at diagnosis and on deaths. Ajay Goel, a professor and chair of the department of Molecular Diagnostics and Experimental Therapeutics at City of Hope, said the real goal is not just to find more cancers [16]. "It is to find them early enough to change what happens to the patient," he said [11]. "We still need longer term evidence showing that this leads to fewer advanced cancers and ultimately fewer cancer deaths" [10].
The published account does not report how many cancers the test missed. Sensitivity is the other half of screening performance. What the paper does report is localisation: where a cancer was flagged, Galleri named the area of the body it originated in about 91 percent of the time [14]. That number decides whether a positive result sends a patient to one imaging suite or to several.
Grail emphasised in its FDA application that a negative result does not definitively rule out cancer [15]. Goel called the panel vote "an important step forward for the field" and added: "I would still view it as an encouraging step rather than the final word on the clinical value of this type of testing" [20] [9]. If the agency approves, he said, Galleri should be viewed as "an additional screening tool, not a replacement for established cancer screening" [12].
The FDA is not obliged to follow these panels but often does, STAT reported [3]. The efficacy question drew four no votes; the benefit-risk question drew two, with one abstention [21].
What to watch
- Whether the FDA narrows the indication beyond people 50 and over, or licenses the test as Grail proposed it.
- Publication of a follow-up algorithm for a positive Galleri result, which Pritchard says the research does not yet support.
- Any Grail data reporting stage at diagnosis or deaths.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence62
- Adoption
- Not scored
- Hype gap+35
- Incentives55
- Confidence58
Perspective Coverage
3 publishers- Builder
- Builder 22%
- Operator
- Operator 43%
- Investor
- Investor 35%
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
A U.S. FDA advisory panel voted on Wednesday in favor of Galleri, a blood test made by Grail Inc. designed to help screen for multiple cancers before symptoms appear.
- [2]
The FDA considers, but is not required to, follow the advice of its expert panel in making decisions.
- [3]
The FDA is not obliged to follow the advice of these panels, but it often does.
- [4]
The ten-person panel voted 10 to 0 that it believed there is "reasonable assurance" the Galleri test is safe.
- [5]
The panel voted 6 to 4 that there was reasonable assurance the test is effective.
- [6]
The panel voted 7 to 2 with one abstention that it believed "the benefits of Galleri outweigh the risk for use in patients who meet the criteria specified in the proposed indication."
- [7]
No multi-cancer early detection tests have been approved by the FDA, according to the American Cancer Society, although screening tools exist for breast, lung and prostate cancer and others.
- [8]
In a study published on Tuesday in Nature Medicine including more than 35,000 participants, Galleri detected signs of cancer in 287 people, about 60 percent of whom were later diagnosed with the disease.
- [9]
Ajay Goel said of the panel vote: "I would still view it as an encouraging step rather than the final word on the clinical value of this type of testing."
- [10]
Goel said: "We still need longer term evidence showing that this leads to fewer advanced cancers and ultimately fewer cancer deaths."
- [11]
Goel said the "real goal" is not just to find more cancers: "It is to find them early enough to change what happens to the patient."
- [12]
Goel said that if the FDA approves Galleri it should be viewed as "an additional screening tool, not a replacement for established cancer screening."
- [13]
Galleri is currently designed for people 50 and over.
- [14]
The test was able to accurately predict what area of the body the cancer originated in about 91 percent of cases.
- [15]
Grail has emphasised in its FDA application that a negative result does not definitively rule out cancer.
- [16]
Ajay Goel is a professor and chair of the department of Molecular Diagnostics and Experimental Therapeutics at City of Hope, a cancer research center.
- [17]
Colin Pritchard, a professor and cancer researcher at the University of Washington, says the Galleri test may be beneficial for people with a high risk of developing cancer, such as those with a family history, but that for people with a low cancer risk false positives could result in unnecessary harms such as expensive imaging or biopsies.
- [18]
Pritchard said: "More research is warranted on which populations should be offered this type of testing and on guidelines for follow up after a positive test result."
- [19]
Goel said: "Galleri has shown that we can detect signals from many different cancers with very high specificity using a simple blood test, including cancers for which we currently have no routine screening."
- [20]
Goel said the panel's favorable vote "represents an important step forward for the field."
- [21]
The benefit-risk question drew two fewer no votes than the efficacy question.
- [22]
About 172 of the 287 people with a cancer signal were later diagnosed with cancer, and about 115 were not.
- [23]
A cancer signal turned up in roughly 8 of every 1,000 people screened in the study.
- [24]
Positives that were not followed by a cancer diagnosis occurred in roughly 3 of every 1,000 people screened, or about one in 300.
- [25]
Cancers confirmed after a positive signal occurred in roughly 5 of every 1,000 people screened.
Sources
3 independent publishers whose own reporting we read for this story.
- scientificamerican.comBlood test for multiple cancers clears crucial hurdle on track to FDA approval
1 article · September 23, 2026
- statnews.comSTAT+: FDA advisory panel endorses Grail blood test for cancer, saying benefits outweigh risks
1 article · September 23, 2026
- thedailyupside.comGrail Jumps as Cancer Test Nears Market
1 article · October 4, 2026
Topics and entities
Topics
- FDA Advisory Committees
- Multi-cancer early detection
- Cancer Screening