Flomics posts 92% multi-cancer test
- Flomics Biotech said its cfRNA blood test detected five cancers from a single draw in a 1,000-plus-sample study presented in Spain in January 2025. (flomics.com) - The headline numbers were AUC 0.92 and 83% sensitivity at 90% specificity, with 80% sensitivity reported for Stage I disease. (flomics.com) - It matters because cfRNA could widen multi-cancer screening beyond ctDNA, but this is still pre-validation conference-stage evidence. (flomics.com)
A multi-cancer blood test lives or dies on one question — can it catch cancer early enough to matter, without flooding clinics with false alarms? That is the w(flomics.com)A. In a study presented in Santiago de Compostela in late January 2025, the Barcelona company reported that its cfRNA test picked(flomics.com)00 samples. (flomics.com) ##(flomics.com)ters because RNA is a readout of what cells are doing right now, not just what mutations they carry. Flomics combines cfRNA sequencing with machine-learning models to classify whether a sample looks cancer-like and, separately, what cancer type it may be. The five cancers in this dataset were colorectal, lung, breast, prostate, and pancreatic. (flomics.com) ### Why use RNA instead of DNA? Most of the multi-cancer screening buzz has centered(flomics.com)uld, at least in theory, surface earlier biological disruption because it captures gene-expression changes. That is the pitch behind cfRNA more broadly, and it is why people in liquid biopsy keep revisiting it despite the technical headaches. (flomics.com) ### So what did Flomics show? The company said the study used samples from more than 1,000 patients colle(flomics.com)thy classifier posted mean AUC 0.92 ± 0.01, with 83% sensitivity at 90% specificity. For Stage I cancers, Flomics said sensitivity was 80%. Those are strong-looking numbers for an early detection claim, especially because pancreatic cancer is in the mix. (flomics.com) ### How good is the cancer typing? This is where the story gets more pra(flomics.com) cancer to 99% for prostate cancer. In other words, the model is not just trying to wave a red flag. It is also trying to point clinicians toward the likely organ system. That matters because every extra diagnostic branch after a positive screen costs time, money, and patient anxiety. (storage.unitedwebnetwork.com) ### What is the catch? The catch is that cfRNA is hard. The field still lacks standardized(flomics.com)ntrolled. That makes single-company performance claims interesting but not decisive. A good conference poster is not the same thing as a locked clinical assay. (sciencedirect.com) ### Is this a published validation? Not yet in the usual sense. What is public here is a company announcement plus conference abstracts and posters, not a full peer-reviewed clinical validation paper. Flomics has said it is prepa(storage.unitedwebnetwork.com)would tell you whether these numbers hold up outside the original development set. (flomics.com) ### Why would labs care? Because a real cfRNA screen would change the front end of cancer workups. More blood-first triage means more reflex imaging, more confirmatory(sciencedirect.com)at only happens if validation shows the test can stay accurate in routine populations, not just curated study cohorts. (flomics.com) ### Bottom line? Flomics did not prove that cfRNA has won multi-cancer screening. But it did put up numbers strong enough to keep the idea alive — and maybe make people take RNA a lot more seriously. The next step is simple to say and hard to do: bigger, messier, real-world validation. (flomics.com)
