What happened to the AMAS "one-drop" cancer blood test?

The AMAS (Anti-Malignin Antibody) test, promoted in the 1990s as a tiny-sample blood screen for cancer, attracted attention but did not achieve the reproducible validation or regulatory acceptance needed to enter standard oncology practice. Contemporary efforts to detect cancer from blood focus on circulating tumor DNA and methylation assays (MCEDs), which are being validated in larger trials and used cautiously alongside, not instead of, established screening tests.

Background

In the early 1990s a test called AMAS (Anti-Malignin Antibody Serum) was reported by Samuel and Elenore Bogoch as a simple blood assay that could detect cancer from a tiny drop of blood. Early press and some promotional materials claimed high accuracy and suggested the test could screen broadly for malignancy, reduce invasive procedures, and be used to test blood supplies.

How the test was described to work

AMAS measured antibodies the inventors associated with a putative cancer antigen (often referred to as "anti-malignin"). The original proponents argued that measuring those antibodies could identify patients with malignancy, monitor for recurrence, and screen large populations more easily than imaging or invasive biopsy.

What the evidence showed

Independent evaluations and mainstream oncology did not adopt AMAS as a routine diagnostic tool. Published studies and reviews raised concerns about inconsistent sensitivity and specificity, limited reproducibility, and a lack of large, independently replicated trials demonstrating reliable performance across cancer types. Claims that AMAS worked at ~95% accuracy or that it replaced established screening tests were not borne out in the peer-reviewed literature.

Several sources from the late 1990s and 2000s describe the test as controversial and note that regulatory approval and broad clinical acceptance were never achieved. ¹

Where things stand today

As of 2025, AMAS is not part of standard cancer-screening guidelines. Oncology practice relies on validated screening tests (mammography, colonoscopy, Pap/HPV testing, low-dose CT for lung cancer in select smokers) and, increasingly, on molecular liquid biopsy approaches that have undergone larger-scale validation.

Modern multi-cancer early detection (MCED) and liquid biopsy tests - which analyze circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) or methylation patterns - have shown promise in clinical studies and have received regulatory attention and limited clinical rollout (for example, some offerings by companies such as GRAIL/Galleri and Guardant). Those tests use genomic signals rather than antibody measurements and have different performance profiles for different cancer types and stages. They are used as complements to, not replacements for, guideline-recommended screening. ²

Bottom line

The core appeal of a simple, reliable blood test to screen broadly for cancer remains powerful. The AMAS story is an early example of a test that generated enthusiasm but failed to become a validated, widely adopted tool. Today's most promising approaches are molecular liquid biopsies that rely on DNA signals and large, multi-center validation studies. Any screening test must show clear benefits in rigorous trials before becoming standard practice.

1. Confirm whether AMAS or related products ever received FDA clearance or approval and, if so, the details and dates.
2. Verify the existence and current status of Oncolab, Inc. and the Bogochs' publications or patents related to AMAS.
3. Locate primary studies or systematic reviews that report on AMAS sensitivity/specificity and the claimed sample sizes (for example, the >6,000 patient figure).
4. Confirm regulatory status and clinical availability of named MCED products (e.g., GRAIL/Galleri, Guardant Shield) as of 2025.