The past few years have been incredibly exciting in cancer research and care. Some of the advances highlighted in Clinical Cancer Advances 2016 are already improving the lives of patients today, and many others provide direction for further research. | Compared with when I started my career in oncology, today we do the unthinkable. We no longer treat cancer simply by its type or stage. In the era of precision medicine, we select—and rule out—treatments based the genomic profile of each patient and the tumor. We manage once-debilitating adverse effects to the point that many, if not most, patients can continue their daily activities during treatment. | No recent advance has been more transformative than the rise of immunotherapy, particularly over this past year, making immunotherapy the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) Advance of the Year. | The immunotherapy concept is simple: unleash the body’s immune system to attack cancer. It has proven extremely difficult, however, to develop treatments that deliver real, consistent results. Decades of bold ideas, dedication, and financial investment in research have been required to prove immunotherapy’s worth as a treatment for people with an array of different cancers.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which of 3 HIV testing and counseling (HTC) models in outpatient departments (OPDs) increases HIV testing and entry of newly identified HIV-infected patients into care. DESIGN: Randomized trial of HTC interventions. METHODS: Thirty-six OPDs in South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda were randomly assigned to 3 different HTC models: (A) health care providers referred eligible patients (aged 18-49, not tested in the past year, not known HIV positive) to on-site voluntary counseling and testing for HTC offered and provided by voluntary counseling and testing counselors after clinical consultation; (B) health care providers offered and provided HTC to eligible patients during clinical consultation; and (C) nurse or lay counselors offered and provided HTC to eligible patients before clinical consultation. Data were collected from October 2011 to September 2012. We describe testing eligibility and acceptance, HIV prevalence, and referral and entry into care. Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine differences by model. RESULTS: Of 79,910 patients, 45% were age eligible and 16,099 (45%) age eligibles were tested. Ten percent tested HIV positive. Significant differences were found in percent tested by model. The proportion of age eligible patients tested by Project STATUS was highest for model C (54.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 42.4 to 65.9), followed by model A (41.7%, 95% CI: 30.7 to 52.8), and then model B (33.9%, 95% CI: 25.7 to 42.1). Of the 1596 newly identified HIV positive patients, 94% were referred to care (96.1% in model A, 94.7% in model B, and 94.9% in model C), and 58% entered on-site care (74.4% in model A, 54.8% in model B, and 55.6% in model C) with no significant differences in referrals or care entry by model. CONCLUSIONS: Model C resulted in the highest proportion of all age-eligible patients receiving a test. Although 94% of STATUS patients with a positive test result were referred to care, only 58% entered care. We found no differences in patients entering care by HTC model. Routine HTC in OPDs is acceptable to patients and effective for identifying HIV-infected persons, but additional efforts are needed to increase entry to care.

Within current oncology practice, several genomic applications are being used to inform treatment decisions with molecularly targeted therapies in breast, lung, colorectal, melanoma, and other cancers. This commentary introduces a conceptual framework connecting the full spectrum of biomedical research disciplines, including fundamental laboratory research, clinical trials, and observational studies in the translation of genomic applications into clinical practice. The conceptual framework illustrates the contribution that well-designed observational epidemiologic studies provide to the successful translation of these applications, and characterizes the role observational epidemiology plays in driving the dynamic and iterative bench-to-bedside, and bedside-to-bench translation continuum. We also discuss how the principles of this conceptual model, emphasizing integration of multidisciplinary research, can be applied to the evolving paradigm in "precision oncology" focusing on multiplex tumor sequencing, and we identify opportunities for observational studies to contribute to the successful and efficient translation of this paradigm.

Validation of early detection cancer biomarkers has proven to be disappointing when initial promising claims have often not been reproducible in diagnostic samples or did not extend to prediagnostic samples. The previously reported lack of rigorous internal validity (systematic differences between compared groups) and external validity (lack of generalizability beyond compared groups) may be effectively addressed by utilizing blood specimens and data collected within well-conducted cohort studies. Cohort studies with prediagnostic specimens (eg, blood specimens collected prior to development of clinical symptoms) and clinical data have recently been used to assess the validity of some early detection biomarkers. With this background, the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) and the Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a joint workshop in August 2013. The goal was to advance early detection cancer research by considering how the infrastructure of cohort studies that already exist or are being developed might be leveraged to include appropriate blood specimens, including prediagnostic specimens, ideally collected at periodic intervals, along with clinical data about symptom status and cancer diagnosis. Three overarching recommendations emerged from the discussions: 1) facilitate sharing of existing specimens and data, 2) encourage collaboration among scientists developing biomarkers and those conducting observational cohort studies or managing healthcare systems with cohorts followed over time, and 3) conduct pilot projects that identify and address key logistic and feasibility issues regarding how appropriate specimens and clinical data might be collected at reasonable effort and cost within existing or future cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To describe recent changes in policy on provider-initiated testing and counselling (PITC) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in African countries and to investigate patients' experiences of and views about PITC. METHODS: A review of the published literature and of national HIV testing policies, strategic frameworks, plans and other relevant documents was carried out. FINDINGS: Of the African countries reviewed, 42 (79.2%) had adopted a PITC policy. Of the 42, all recommended PITC for the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission, 66.7% recommended it for tuberculosis clinics and patients, and 45.2% for sexually transmitted infection clinics. Moreover, 43.6% adopted PITC in 2005 or 2006. The literature search identified 11 studies on patients' experiences of and views about PITC in clinical settings in Africa. The clear majority regarded PITC as acceptable. However, women in antenatal clinics were not always aware that they had the right to decline an HIV test. CONCLUSION: Policy and practice on HIV testing and counselling in Africa has shifted from a cautious approach that emphasizes confidentiality to greater acceptance of the routine offer of HIV testing. The introduction of PITC in clinical settings has contributed to increased HIV testing in several of these settings. Most patients regard PITC as acceptable. However, other approaches are needed to reach people who do not consult health-care services.

BACKGROUND: International guidance recommends the scale up of routinely recommended, offered, and delivered health care provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling (PITC) to increase the proportion of persons who know their HIV status. We compared HIV test uptake under PITC to provider-referral to voluntary counseling and testing (VCT referral) in two primary health centers in South Africa. METHODS: Prior to introducing PITC, clinical providers were instructed to refer systematically selected study participants to VCT. After PITC and HIV rapid test training, providers were asked to recommend, offer and provide HIV testing to study participants during the clinical consultation. Participants were interviewed before and after their consultation to assess their HIV testing experiences. RESULTS: HIV test uptake increased under PITC (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.71, 4.76), and more patients felt providers answered their questions on HIV (104/141 [74%] versus 73/118 [62%] for VCT referral; p 0.04). After three months, only 4/106 (3.8%) HIV-positive patients had registered for onsite HIV treatment. Providers found PITC useful, but tested very few patients (range 0-15). CONCLUSION: PITC increased the uptake of HIV testing compared with referral to onsite VCT, and patients reported a positive response to PITC. However, providing universal PITC will require strong leadership to train and motivate providers, and interventions to link HIV-positive persons to HIV treatment centers.

Recent advances in genomic research have demonstrated a substantial role for genomic factors in predicting response to cancer therapies. Researchers in the fields of cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology seek to understand why individuals respond differently to drug therapy, in terms of both adverse effects and treatment efficacy. To identify research priorities as well as the resources and infrastructure needed to advance these fields, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop titled "Cancer Pharmacogenomics: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation" on July 21, 2009, in Bethesda, MD. In this commentary, we summarize and discuss five science-based recommendations and four infrastructure-based recommendations that were identified as a result of discussions held during this workshop. Key recommendations include 1) supporting the routine collection of germline and tumor biospecimens in NCI-sponsored clinical trials and in some observational and population-based studies; 2) incorporating pharmacogenomic markers into clinical trials; 3) addressing the ethical, legal, social, and biospecimen- and data-sharing implications of pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic research; and 4) establishing partnerships across NCI, with other federal agencies, and with industry. Together, these recommendations will facilitate the discovery and validation of clinical, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and genomic markers related to cancer treatment response and adverse events, and they will improve both the speed and efficiency by which new pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic information is translated into clinical practice.