Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Hot Topics of the Day|PHGKB
Search PHGKB:

Archive

Hot Topics of the Day are picked by experts to capture the latest information and publications on public health genomics and precision health for various diseases and health topics. Sources include published scientific literature, reviews, blogs and popular press articles.

Sign up MyPHGKB to receive the daily hot topic email alert.

Search Archive:
Archived Hot Topics of the Day By Date
127 hot topic(s) found with the query "Cancer screening"

USPSTF Recommendation Expands Cancer Screening Pool, Concerns Still Remain
KL Kahl, Cure, August 26, 2019 (Posted: Aug-27-2019 7AM)

Many see the new USPSTF guidelines as a major step forward in genetics. However, the updated recommendation still comes with concerns: It failed to include newly diagnosed patients with breast or ovarian cancer as well as patients with advanced cancers. In addition, it did not include men. Fifty percent of people with a BRCA mutation are men.


Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer incorporating common genetic variants: a systematic review
McGeoch, L. et. al. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (Posted: Jul-15-2019 9AM)

This is an updated systematic review of colorectal cancer risk prediction models that incorporate genetic factors. The addition of genetics may increase predictive ability by 0.01 to 0.05. There are added value beyond using family history alone and potential implications for starting age of colorectal cancer screening.


Breast cancer screening in high-risk women: is MRI alone enough?
Saccarelli Carolina Rossi et al. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2019 Jun (Posted: Jun-26-2019 8AM)

MRI is the most sensitive imaging technique for breast cancer screening. Women at high risk for breast cancer such as due to #BRCA mutations are recommended to have annual MRI screening. But is MRI screening alone enough?


End-to-end lung cancer screening with three-dimensional deep learning on low-dose chest computed tomography
D Ardila et al, Nature Medicine, May 20, 2019 (Posted: May-20-2019 11AM)


Colorectal Cancer Screening
N Gupta et al, JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis, April 25, 2019 (Posted: Apr-25-2019 0PM)


Should women with a BRCA1/2 mutation aged 60 and older be offered intensified breast cancer screening? - A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Phi Xuan-Anh et al. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2019 Mar 4582-88 (Posted: Mar-27-2019 9AM)


Colon Cancer Screening Can Save Your Life- With colorectal cancer being found in an increasing number of younger adults, the pressure is on to screen millions more.
JE Brody, NY Times, March 11, 2019 (Posted: Mar-17-2019 4PM)


What Is Breast Cancer Screening?
CDC, 2019 Brand (Posted: Feb-18-2019 0PM)


Providing clinicians and patients with important information to help guide decisions about prostate cancer screening.
USPSTF, October 8, 2018 (Posted: Oct-09-2018 2PM)


Could earlier colorectal cancer screening help identify more people with hereditary cancer?
L Steinmark, Jackson Labs, September 25, 2018 (Posted: Sep-26-2018 8AM)


Final Recommendation Statement Cervical Cancer Screening,
U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, August 2018 (Posted: Aug-29-2018 9AM)


Cancer Screening
Recommendations for individual patients vary according to their level of risk, Jackson Labs, clinician education (Posted: Aug-27-2018 2PM)


Low Referral Rate for Genetic Testing in Racially and Ethnically Diverse Patients Despite Universal Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Muller Charles et al. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association 2018 Aug (Posted: Aug-22-2018 11AM)


Cervical Cancer Screening—Moving From the Value of Evidence to the Evidence of Value
GF Sawaya, JAMA Internal Medicine, AUgust 21, 2018 (Posted: Aug-21-2018 0PM)


Family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios.
Dillon Mary et al. PLoS medicine 2018 Aug (8) e1002630 (Posted: Aug-21-2018 8AM)


Blood based biomarkers beyond genomics for lung cancer screening.
Hanash Samir M et al. Translational lung cancer research 2018 Jun (3) 327-335 (Posted: Aug-01-2018 9AM)


Using Genetic Risk Scores in Cancer Screening: Are We There Yet?
Roberts M et al, CDC Blog Post, July 5, 2018 Brand (Posted: Jul-06-2018 8AM)


Genetic Risk Score Is Associated With Prevalence of Advanced Neoplasms in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Population.
Weigl Korbinian et al. Gastroenterology 2018 Mar (Posted: Jun-26-2018 7PM)


Colorectal cancer screening for average]risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society
MD Andrew et al. Cancer, May 30, 2018 (Posted: May-30-2018 11AM)


Evaluating and improving the implementation of a community-based hereditary cancer screening program.
Greenberg Samantha et al. Journal of community genetics 2018 Mar (Posted: Mar-07-2018 9AM)


The Yet Unrealized Promise of Ovarian Cancer Screening
CW Drescher et al, JAMA Oncology, Feb 13, 2018 (Posted: Feb-14-2018 9AM)


Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors of First Degree Relatives of Women Receiving Breast Cancer Treatment and the Affecting Factors.
Kirca Nurcan et al. European journal of breast health 2018 Jan 14(1) 23-28 (Posted: Jan-17-2018 11AM)


Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition.
Mikropoulos Christos et al. British journal of cancer 2018 Jan (Posted: Jan-10-2018 9AM)


Pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals with germline genetic mutations.
DaVee Tomas et al. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2018 Jan (Posted: Jan-10-2018 9AM)


No evidence of excessive cancer screening in female noncarriers from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families.
Guedaoura S et al. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) 2017 Dec 24(6) 352-359 (Posted: Jan-03-2018 10AM)


Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Non-Syndromic Familial Risk Population: Is It Time to Revise the Clinical Guidelines?
Quintero Enrique et al. The American journal of gastroenterology 2017 Oct (Posted: Nov-01-2017 9AM)


NCI study shows feasibility of cancer screening protocol for Li-Fraumeni syndrome patients
Science Mag, August 3, 2017 (Posted: Aug-07-2017 9AM)


Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps.
Marcus Pamela M et al. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 2016 Nov (11) 1449-1455 (Posted: Aug-06-2017 10AM)


Cancer Screening Recommendations for Individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome.
Kratz Christian P et al. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2017 06 (11) e38-e45 (Posted: Aug-03-2017 8PM)


Prostate Cancer Screening in a New Era of Genetics.
Cheng Heather H et al. Clinical genitourinary cancer 2017 May (Posted: Jul-19-2017 8AM)


Draft Recommendation Statement: Ovarian Cancer Screening
US Preventive Services Task Force, July 2017 (Posted: Jul-18-2017 4PM)


Benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening - predictions of the ONCOTYROL prostate cancer outcome and policy model.
Mühlberger Nikolai et al. BMC public health 2017 Jun 17(1) 596 (Posted: Jun-28-2017 10AM)


Recommendations for Childhood Cancer Screening and Surveillance in DNA Repair Disorders.
Walsh Michael F et al. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2017 Jun 23(11) e23-e31 (Posted: Jun-07-2017 9AM)


Early Adoption of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Finney Rutten Lila J et al. Mayo Clinic proceedings 2017 May (5) 726-733 (Posted: Jun-01-2017 10AM)


Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
Rex Douglas K et al. The American journal of gastroenterology 2017 May (Posted: May-31-2017 11AM)


Comparison of the efficiency of colorectal cancer screening programs based on age and genetic risk for reduction of colorectal cancer mortality.
Stanesby Oliver et al. European journal of human genetics : EJHG 2017 May (Posted: May-17-2017 9AM)


Designing clinical and genetic guidelines of colorectal cancer screening as an effective roadmap for risk management.
Zali Mohammad Reza et al. Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench 2016 Dec 9(Suppl1) S53-S61 (Posted: Mar-01-2017 10AM)


Time is running out to get a free cancer screening
R Murray, Dayton Daily News, November 14, 2016 (Posted: Nov-15-2016 9AM)


Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes.
Meisel Susanne F et al. BMC women's health 2016 16(1) 46 (Posted: Aug-03-2016 9AM)


U.S. healthcare facilities have capacity to meet colorectal cancer screening goals
News Release, June 22, 2016 Brand (Posted: Jun-22-2016 4PM)


Colorectal Cancer Screening- Which Test Is Best?
JM Inadomi, JAMA Oncology, June 16, 2016 (Posted: Jun-16-2016 9AM)


Enhanced Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening May Prevent More Deaths than Current Approaches
NCI, June 2016 (Posted: Jun-10-2016 7AM)


Cancer Screening Tests
CDC, 2019 Brand (Posted: Apr-30-2016 0AM)


Improving Prostate Cancer Screening and Diagnosis- Health Policy and Biomarkers Beyond PSA
HD Patel et al, JAMA Oncology, March 31, 2016 (Posted: Apr-02-2016 10AM)


Colorectal cancer screening saves lives. Talk to your doctor about getting screened.
Brand (Posted: Mar-02-2016 10AM)


Mega Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Shows Modest Reduction in Mortality
A Slomski, JAMA, February 23, 2016 (Posted: Feb-24-2016 11AM)


US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation on Breast Cancer Screening
USPSTF, January 11, 2016 (Posted: Jan-12-2016 11AM)


Cancer screening and genetics: a tale of two paradigms.
Hamilton Jada G et al. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 2014 Jun (6) 909-16 (Posted: Jan-12-2016 8AM)


Targeted Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Individuals.
Marcus Pamela M et al. American journal of preventive medicine 2015 Nov (5) 765-71 (Posted: Jan-12-2016 8AM)


Race and colorectal cancer screening compliance among persons with a family history of cancer.
Laiyemo Adeyinka O et al. World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy 2015 Dec 7(18) 1300-5 (Posted: Dec-29-2015 4PM)


Bringing Precision to Screening for Cancer
NCI, November 18, 2015 (Posted: Nov-18-2015 7PM)


A Genetic-Based Approach to Individualized Prostate Cancer Screening and Treatment
CB Bender, Personalized Medicine in Oncology, August 2015 (Posted: Sep-26-2015 8AM)


Colonoscopy screening among US adults aged 40 or older with a family history of colorectal cancer.
Tsai Meng-Han et al. Prev Chronic Dis 2015 E80 (Posted: Sep-04-2015 11AM)


Biomarkers for determination prostate cancer: implication for diagnosis and prognosis.
Ziaran S et al. Neoplasma 2015 Aug 17. (Posted: Aug-26-2015 9AM)


Reducing overdiagnosis by polygenic risk-stratified screening: findings from the Finnish section of the ERSPC.
Pashayan Nora et al. Br. J. Cancer 2015 Aug 20. (Posted: Aug-26-2015 9AM)


Prostate Cancer Screening
JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis, August 26, 2015 (Posted: Aug-26-2015 9AM)


Precision Cancer Screening in the General Population: Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps
NCI Workshop, September 29, 2015 (Posted: Jul-24-2015 11AM)


Using genomics in complex diseases: do health professionals need new skills?
S CHowdhury, PHG Foundation, July 24, 2015 (Posted: Jul-24-2015 11AM)


Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?
S Chowdhury et al. P Pers Med June 2015 (Posted: Jul-24-2015 11AM)


Circulating MicroRNAs as Non-Invasive Biomarkers for Early Detection of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.
Wozniak Magdalena B et al. PLoS ONE 2015 (5) e0125026 (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


Public interest in and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer.
Koitsalu Marie et al. Acta Oncol 2015 May 20. 1-7 (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


Committee opinion no. 634: hereditary cancer syndromes and risk assessment.
Obstet Gynecol 2015 Jun (6) 1538-43 (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


A cost analysis of a pancreatic cancer screening protocol in high-risk populations.
Bruenderman Elizabeth et al. Am. J. Surg. 2015 Apr 24. (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


Screening in GI Cancers: The Role of Genetics.
Stoffel Elena M et al. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 Jun 1. (16) 1721-1728 (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


Intensified surveillance for early detection of breast cancer in high-risk patients.
Bick Ulrich et al. Breast Care (Basel) 2015 Feb (1) 13-20 (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


Molecular markers for colorectal cancer screening.
Dickinson Brandon T et al. Gut 2015 May 20. (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


Effects of age on the detection and management of breast cancer.
McGuire Andrew et al. Cancers (Basel) 2015 (2) 908-29 (Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


NCI Information: Screening can help doctors find and treat several types of cancer early
(Posted: Jun-01-2015 10AM)


Factors influencing breast cancer screening and risk assessment among young African American women: An integrative review of the literature.
Jones Tarsha P et al. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract 2015 Mar 3. (Posted: May-27-2015 11AM)


Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: a report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial.
Rubinstein Wendy S et al. Genet. Med. 2011 Nov (11) 956-65 (Posted: May-14-2015 11AM)


Estimation of Detection Rates of Aneuploidy in High-Risk Pregnancy Using an Approach Based on Nuchal Translucency and Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing: A Cohort Study.
Khalil Asma et al. Fetal. Diagn. Ther. 2015 Apr 30. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


"Suddenly Having two Positive People who are Carriers is a Whole New Thing"- Experiences of Couples Both Identified as Carriers of Cystic Fibrosis Through a Population-Based Carrier Screening Program in Australia.
Ioannou Liane et al. J Genet Couns 2015 May 1. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Genetics and Personal Insurance: the Perspectives of Canadian Cancer Genetic Counselors.
Lane Michelle et al. J Genet Couns 2015 May 1. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Attitudes and Knowledge of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellows Regarding Noninvasive Prenatal Testing.
Swaney Paul et al. J Genet Couns 2015 May 1. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


A survey on the awareness and attitude of pharmacists and doctors towards the application of pharmacogenomics and its challenges in Qatar.
Elewa Hazem et al. J Eval Clin Pract 2015 Apr 30. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Patentability of human genes: the conceptual differences between the industrialised and Latin American countries.
Bergel Salvador Darío et al. J Community Genet 2015 May 1. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Family history and body mass index predict perceived risks of diabetes and heart attack among community-dwelling Caucasian, Filipino, Korean, and Latino Americans-DiLH Survey.
Fukuoka Yoshimi et al. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2015 Apr 20. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


"Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.
Allyse Megan et al. AJOB Empir Bioeth 6(1) 5-20 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


"Don't Want No Risk and Don't Want No Problems": Public Understandings of the Risks and Benefits of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing in the United States.
Allyse Megan et al. AJOB Empir Bioeth 6(1) 5-20 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Use of modified Magee equations and histologic criteria to predict the Oncotype DX recurrence score.
Turner Bradley M et al. Mod. Pathol. 2015 May 1. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Adherence patterns to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for referral to cancer genetic professionals.
Febbraro Terri et al. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015 Apr 28. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


An update on the use of health information technology in newborn screening.
Abhyankar Swapna et al. Semin. Perinatol. 2015 Apr 29. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Family history of premature myocardial infarction, life course socioeconomic position and coronary heart disease mortality - A Cohort of Norway (CONOR) study.
Fiskå Bendik S et al. Int. J. Cardiol. 2015 Apr 22. 190302-307 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Newborn screening: evolving challenges in an era of rapid discovery.
Bailey Donald B et al. JAMA 2015 Apr 21. 313(15) 1511-2 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Whole-genome sequencing in critically ill infants and emerging ethical challenges.
Char Danton S et al. Lancet Respir Med 2015 Apr 27. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Whole-genome sequencing for identification of Mendelian disorders in critically ill infants: a retrospective analysis of diagnostic and clinical findings.
Willig Laurel K et al. Lancet Respir Med 2015 Apr 27. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


The Pediatric Imaging, Neurocognition, and Genetics (PING) Data Repository.
Jernigan Terry L et al. Neuroimage 2015 Apr 30. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Effects of CYP2C19 and P2Y12 Gene Polymorphisms on Clinical Results of Patients Using Clopidogrel after Acute Ischemic Cerebrovascular Disease.
Sen H M et al. Balkan J. Med. Genet. 2014 Dec 17(2) 37-41 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Ethical, legal, social, and policy issues in the use of genomic technology by the U.S. Military.
Mehlman Maxwell J et al. J Law Biosci 2014 Sep 1. 1(3) 244-280 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


The impact of smoke exposure on the clinical phenotype of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency in ireland: exploiting a national registry to understand a rare disease.
O'Brien M Emmet et al. COPD 2015 May 12 Suppl 12-9 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency in Canada: regional disparities in diagnosis and management.
Bradi Ana C et al. COPD 2015 May 12 Suppl 115-21 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


The national alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency registry in poland.
Chorostowska-Wynimko Joanna et al. COPD 2015 May 12 Suppl 122-6 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


The Clinical Profile of Subjects Included in the Swedish National Register on Individuals with Severe Alpha 1-Antitrypsin deficiency.
Piitulainen Eeva et al. COPD 2015 May 12 Suppl 136-41 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


The United States alpha-1 foundation research registry: genesis, impact and future.
Strange Charlie et al. COPD 2015 May 12 Suppl 142-5 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Italian registry of patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency: general data and quality of life evaluation.
Luisetti Maurizio et al. COPD 2015 May 12 Suppl 152-7 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Using community-based participatory research principles to develop more understandable recruitment and informed consent documents in genomic research.
Skinner Harlyn G et al. PLoS ONE 2015 10(5) e0125466 (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


PGMD: a comprehensive manually curated pharmacogenomic database.
Kaplun A et al. Pharmacogenomics J. 2015 May 5. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Early prediction of disease progression in small-cell lung cancer: Towards model-based personalized medicine in oncology.
Buil-Bruna Nuria et al. Cancer Res. 2015 May 4. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Medium-Chain Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency: Evaluation of Genotype-Phenotype Correlation in Patients Detected by Newborn Screening.
Gramer Gwendolyn et al. JIMD Rep 2015 May 5. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


No Clinical Utility of KRAS Variant rs61764370 for Ovarian or Breast Cancer.
et al. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015 May 1. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


An Adolescent Substance Prevention Model Blocks the Effect of CHRNA5 Genotype on Smoking During High School.
Vandenbergh David J et al. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2015 May 4. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Cervical Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Women.
Ann. Intern. Med. 2015 Apr 30. (Posted: May-06-2015 10AM)


Global methylation silencing of clustered proto-cadherin genes in cervical cancer: serving as diagnostic markers comparable to HPV.
Wang Kai-Hung et al. Cancer Med 2015 Jan (1) 43-55 (Posted: May-06-2015 9AM)


Progression of naive intraepithelial neoplasia genome to aggressive squamous cell carcinoma genome of uterine cervix.
Jung Seung-Hyun et al. Oncotarget 2015 Feb 28. (6) 4385-93 (Posted: May-06-2015 9AM)


Assessment of the association between micronuclei and the degree of uterine lesions and viral load in women with human papillomavirus.
Adam Mônica Lúcia et al. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 2015 Mar-Apr (2) 67-71 (Posted: May-06-2015 9AM)


Quantitative DNA methylation analysis of candidate genes in cervical cancer.
Siegel Erin M et al. PLoS ONE 2015 (3) e0122495 (Posted: May-06-2015 9AM)


Can Genomic Amplification of Human Telomerase Gene and C-MYC in Liquid-Based Cytological Specimens Be Used as a Method for Opportunistic Cervical Cancer Screening?
Gao Kun et al. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 2015 Apr 1. (Posted: May-06-2015 9AM)


Cervical Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Women: Best Practice Advice From the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.
Sawaya George F et al. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015 Apr 30. (Posted: May-06-2015 9AM)


CDC Information: Cancer Screening Tests
Brand (Posted: Feb-25-2015 0PM)


CDC Paper: Targeted Cancer Screening in Average-Risk Individuals
P Marcus et al, AM J Prev Medicine, July 2015 Brand (Posted: Feb-25-2015 0PM)


Can we use genetic stratification in population screening for cancer?
Brand (Posted: Feb-25-2015 0PM)


Fact Sheet on Cervical Cancer [PDF 873.72 KB]
Brand (Posted: Feb-25-2015 0PM)


Cervical cancer is preventable
Brand (Posted: Feb-25-2015 0PM)


What should I know about screening?
Brand (Posted: Feb-25-2015 0PM)


A Model to Determine Colorectal Cancer Risk Using Common Genetic Susceptibility Loci.
Hsu Li et al. Gastroenterology 2015 Feb 12. (Posted: Feb-20-2015 8AM)


Applicability of next generation sequencing technology in microsatellite instability testing.
Gan Chun et al. Genes (Basel) 2015 (1) 46-59 (Posted: Feb-20-2015 8AM)


A candidate gene study of capecitabine-related toxicity in colorectal cancer identifies new toxicity variants at DPYD and a putative role for ENOSF1 rather than TYMS.
Rosmarin Dan et al. Gut 2015 Jan (1) 111-20 (Posted: Feb-20-2015 8AM)


Awareness and uptake of family screening in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer at a young age.
Hogan Niamh M et al. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2015 194931 (Posted: Feb-20-2015 8AM)


Role of tumour molecular and pathology features to estimate colorectal cancer risk for first-degree relatives.
Win Aung Ko et al. Gut 2015 Jan (1) 101-10 (Posted: Feb-20-2015 8AM)


Prostate cancer screening using risk stratification based on a multi-state model of genetic variants.
Yen Amy Ming-Fang et al. Prostate 2015 Feb 14. (Posted: Feb-19-2015 0PM)


A simple-to-use method incorporating genomic markers into prostate cancer risk prediction tools facilitated future validation.
Grill Sonja et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2015 Jan 14. (Posted: Feb-19-2015 0PM)


The Impact of Stratifying by Family History in Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.
Goede S Lucas et al. Int. J. Cancer 2015 Feb 6. (Posted: Feb-15-2015 9AM)


Stomach (Gastric) Cancer Prevention (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version
Brand (Posted: Jan-11-2014 11AM)

Overview Note: Separate PDQ summaries on Stomach (Gastric) Cancer Screening, Gastric Cancer Treatment, and Levels of Evidence for Cancer Screening and Prevention Studies are also available. Who Is at Risk? People at elevated risk for gastric cancer include elderly patients with atrophic gastritis or pernicious anemia, patients with sporadic gastric adenomas,[1] familial adenomatous polyposis,[2] or hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer,[3] and immigrant ethnic populations from countries with high rates of gastric carcinoma.[4,5] Workers in the rubber and coal industries are also at increased risk.[6] Risk factors for gastric cancer include the presence of precursor conditions such as chronic atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia, pernicious anemia, and gastric adenomatous polyps. Genetic factors include a family history of gastric cancer, Li Fraumeni syndrome, and Type A blood type.[6] Environmental factors include low consumption of fruits and vegetables; consumption of salted, smoked, or poorly preserved foods; cigarette smoking; and radiation exposure.[6-8] There is consistent evidence that Helicobacter pylori infection, also known as H. pylori infection, of the stomach is strongly associated with both the initiation and promotion of carcinoma of the gastric body and antrum and of gastric lymphoma.[9-11] The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies H. pylori infection as a cause of noncardia gastric carcinoma and gastric low-grade B-cell mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue or MALT lymphoma (i.e., a Group 1 human carcinogen).[12,13] Compared with the general population, people with duodenal ulcer disease may have a lower risk of gastric cancer.[14] Interventions for Reduction of Stomach (Gastric) Cancer Risk Smoking cessation Based on solid evidence, smoking is associated with an increased risk of stomach cancer.[15-17] The 2004 Surgeon General?s report identifies cigarette smoking as a cause of stomach cancer, with an average relative risk (RR) in former smokers of 1.2 and in current smokers of 1.6.[18] Compared with persistent smokers, the risk of stomach cancer decreases among former smokers with time since cessation. This pattern of observations makes it reasonable to infer that cigarette smoking prevention or cessation would result in a decreased risk of gastric cancer. Magnitude of Effect: A systematic review and meta-analysis showed a 60% increase in gastric cancer in male smokers and a 20% increase in gastric cancer in female smokers compared with nonsmokers.[15] Study Design: Evidence obtained from case-control and cohort studies. Internal Validity: Good. Consistency: Good. External Validity: Good. H. Pylori infection eradication Based on solid evidence, H. pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer. A meta-analysis of seven randomized studies, all conducted in areas of high-risk gastric cancer and all but one conducted in Asia, suggests that treatment of H. pylori may reduce gastric cancer risk (from 1.7% to 1.1%; RR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.43?0.98).[19] Only two studies assessed gastric cancer incidence as the primary study outcome, and two different studies were double blinded. It is unclear how generalizable the results may be to the North American population. In the initial report from a clinical trial, 3,365 randomized subjects were followed in an intention-to-treat analysis; it was shown that short-term treatment with amoxicillin and omeprazole reduced the incidence of gastric cancer by 39% during a period of 15 years following randomization, with similar but not statistically significant reductions for gastric cancer mortality.[20] Magnitude of Effect: Risk of cancer may be reduced; effect on cancer mortality is not known. Study Design: Randomized controlled trials of H. pylori eradication. Internal Validity: Good. Consistency: Good. External Validity: Good. Interventions With Inadequate Evidence as to Whether They Reduce the Risk of Stomach (Gastric) Cancer Diet Based on fair evidence, excessive salt intake and deficient dietary consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables are associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer. Dietary intake of vitamin C contained in vegetables, fruits, and other foods of plant origin is associated with a reduced risk of gastric cancer. Diets high in whole-grain cereals, carotenoids, allium compounds, and green tea are also associated with a reduced risk of this cancer. However, it is uncertain if changing one's diet to include more vegetables, fruits, and whole grains would reduce the risk of gastric cancer. Magnitude of Effect: Small, difficult to determine. Study Design: Cohort or case-control studies. Internal Validity: Good. Consistency: Small number of studies. External Validity: Fair (populations vary greatly in their underlying nutritional status). Cancer


Using Gene Expression to Diagnose Lung Cancer More Accurately
Brand (Posted: Jan-11-2014 11AM)

Assessing gene expression in normal cells from the upper airways of current and former smokers with suspected lung cancer may be useful in improving the diagnostic accuracy of bronchoscopy, potentially reducing the need for invasive biopsies, according to a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). When potentially cancerous lesions in the lung are identified by CT scan, clinicians often use bronchoscopy to evaluate these lesions more closely. Although this procedure is relatively safe, it often fails to produce a definitive diagnosis because the scope cannot reach some areas of the lung. In such cases, an invasive biopsy (surgical or needle) may be required. But these procedures carry the risk of complications, and some investigators have reported more than one quarter of people who undergo a lung biopsy turn out to have benign lesions. In an effort to help address this problem, the researchers tested the normal bronchial cells in the upper airway, taking advantage of the ?field of injury? concept, explained the study?s lead investigator, Avrum Spira, M.D., of the Boston University School of Medicine. When a person smokes, all the cells in their respiratory airways are exposed to tobacco smoke, which causes DNA damage. A distinct pattern of DNA damage can be observed in the epithelial cells of smokers who go on to develop lung cancer, Dr. Spira and his colleagues showed in a 2007 study. The patterns of DNA damage in normal cells from the upper respiratory tract are ?like the canary in the coal mine,? he explained in an interview. Based on differences in the pattern of DNA damage, the researchers developed a gene expression signature?a genomic classifier?that could be used to test normal cells from the bronchial airway obtained during bronchoscopy for the presence of tumors inside the lungs. In the NEJM study, they applied the findings of the earlier study and showed that ?the classifier works in a real-world, clinical setting,? said Dr. Spira. The study, which was funded in part by NCI?s Early Detection Research Network, enrolled 639 adult current and former smokers who were participating in two clinical trials, AEGIS 1 and AEGIS 2. All participants underwent a bronchoscopy for suspected lung cancer, and a brush was used to collect epithelial cells from the mainstem bronchus of the airway during bronchoscopy. The gene expression patterns in the epithelial cells were analyzed and patients were followed until a diagnosis was made or for 12 months after bronchoscopy. A total of 487 patients were found to have lung cancer. No diagnosis could be made in 272 patients based on a bronchoscopy alone, they found. Of these patients with a nondiagnostic bronchoscopy, 170 underwent a further invasive procedure to secure a diagnosis (including surgery in 76 patients), 52 of whom were eventually diagnosed with benign lung lesions. They also assessed the sensitivity and specificity of bronchoscopy plus the classifier, because an accurate diagnostic test not only detects most of the cancers that are present (sensitivity) but it also has a low chance of incorrectly indicating cancer in someone who does not have it (specificity). Overall, the sensitivity of bronchoscopy plus the classifier was 97 percent compared with 75 percent for bronchoscopy alone. The sensitivity of the combination test was consistently high across nodule size, location, cancer stage, or type, they reported. The genomic classifier incorrectly suggested cancer in 53 percent of people who did not have lung cancer. Although the test has a high rate of false positives, when both the bronchoscopy and the classifier were negative, the probability that the patient had cancer was reduced. A negative test result can inform clinical management and eliminate unnecessary invasive biopsies that carry the risk of complications as well as costs to the health care system, Dr. Spira said. ?A negative test gives you peace of mind,? he explained. One limitation of the study is that it was evaluated only in patients who were already strongly suspected of having cancer, said Barry Kramer, M.D., M.P.H., director of NCI?s Division of Cancer Prevention. "The paper doesn?t tell us how this would perform in a true screening setting," Dr. Kramer continued. "The prevalence of cancer in the two cohorts is 74 percent and 75 percent, much higher than in a general population of screened cigarette smokers or former smokers, even with abnormalities on low-dose chest CT." This is the first time a genomic classifier for lung cancer has been developed and validated in high-risk cohorts, explained Sudhir Srivastava, Ph.D., M.P.H., chief of the cancer biomarkers research group in NCI?s Division of Cancer Prevention. The study, he continued, "lends further support for developing a similar approach for lung cancer screening in an asymptomatic population." Initially, the test?known commercially as the Percepta Bronchial Genomic Classifier?will be available to 30 to 40 medical centers as part of an early access program before becoming more widely available, according to Veracyte, which manufactures the test. Cancer


Bringing Precision to Screening for Cancer
Brand (Posted: Jan-11-2014 11AM)

Precision medicine is most often discussed in the context of treatment, but cancer control and prevention researchers are applying these concepts to cancer screening. Largely, that means finding ways to pinpoint who is most likely to benefit from regular screening. On September 29, NCI sponsored a conference that brought together leading screening and cancer control researchers to discuss the state of the science of precision screening for five cancers: prostate, breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung. The intent of the meeting was to allow the researchers "to brainstorm about how best to move forward" with a research agenda for better understanding and implementing precision screening, explained its chief organizer, Pam Marcus, Ph.D., of NCI?s Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program. A surprising theme that emerged from the meeting, Dr. Marcus said, was that although there are some common issues and challenges for precision screening for these five cancers, in many cases, the issues and challenges "are very organ specific." Harms and Benefits In recent years the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with cancer screening?in particular, screening for breast and prostate cancer?has come under intense scrutiny. The need to reduce those risks was an undercurrent throughout the conference. "All screening programs can do harm, but some can do good," said Nora Pashayan, M.D., Ph.D., of the University College London, during her keynote address. ?What matters is the balance of potential benefits versus potential harms.? Michael Gould, M.D., of Kaiser Permanente Southern California, highlighted the challenges that lung cancer screening can present. Dr. Gould pointed to the changes that have come about as a result of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which showed that current and former heavy smokers were 20 percent less likely to die from lung cancer if they were screened with low-dose helical CT than if they were screened with standard chest x-rays. But, he noted, the trial also had a very high percentage of false-positive results, which translated into approximately 2 percent of participants undergoing an invasive procedure?either a biopsy or surgery?for what turned out to be a benign lung nodule. Based on the NLST results, Medicare and many other insurers now cover the cost of screening with CT in current or prior heavy smokers. But that change has not come without problems, Dr. Gould noted. As was the case in NLST, he said, many current and former smokers who are now coming in for screening have false-positive results and are undergoing additional tests, including invasive procedures?which can have their own, sometimes serious, complications. Researchers are studying ways to better stratify these people by their cancer risk, and Dr. Gould described some of this work. But, in the absence of more definitive information on risk beyond smoking history, he acknowledged that, at his institution, "we?re still struggling with how to implement screening in the real world." Progress toward Risk-Tailored Screening In breast cancer, there has been considerable study of precision screening, also referred to as risk-tailored screening, explained Dr. Pashayan. But, echoing a refrain heard throughout the day, she acknowledged that in this area "there are more questions than answers." In breast and other cancers, factors such as family history, age, and clinical history are often used to predict future cancer risk, which can help guide screening decisions. Dr. Pashayan and other researchers have been studying whether additional information, such as panels of genetic alterations known as single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)?identified via genome-wide association studies?can help to improve risk stratification. She cited a recent large study that indicated that a "polygenic risk score"?based on how many risk variants associated with breast cancer a woman has?can identify women at increased breast cancer risk. In the study, women with the highest polygenic risk score, for example, had a risk of breast cancer that was three times greater than that of women who had lower scores. Although these results suggest that there is some promise to using this type of genetic information to help identify those who might benefit most from screening, many of these types of studies?in breast but also other cancers?are still preliminary and will need to be refined and validated, Dr. Pashayan noted. "We will need robust evidence to support precision medicine screening," she said. Some Movement toward More Precision Cervical cancer screening in the United States has already moved toward a risk-based approach, said Mark Schiffman, M.D., M.P.H., of NCI?s Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (DCEG). The shift, he explained, is based on studies which established that persistent infection with high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV) are responsible for nearly all cases of cervical cancer and that revealed the process by which precancerous lesions progress to an invasive cancer. "We know a great deal about the causal pathway in cervical cancer," Dr. Schiffman said. Although Pap testing is still being used routinely to screen women for cervical cancer, clinicians are now incorporating a patient?s HPV status into the decision-making process, Dr. Schiffman said. Under current recommendations from leading medical societies, the presence of high-risk HPV types, identified using DNA-based tests, should help to guide decisions about issues such as the most appropriate screening interval. But the current approach is not set in stone, Dr. Schiffman cautioned. As rates of vaccination against HPV increase, he explained, that will affect how cervical cancer screening is performed. Challenges Remain There was also robust discussion about what type of evidence is needed to implement changes in screening practices: primarily data from observational, population-based studies or data from randomized controlled trials. Dependent on the cancer type and the extent and strength of the available data, there is evidence to support both views, Dr. Marcus noted. Working through these sorts of questions will be a key challenge in moving toward a precision medicine-based approach to screening, she added. Although there is still a long way to go before precision screening is common for these cancers, Dr. Gould stressed that it?s important to keep moving in this direction. "When we?re screening, we?re dealing with otherwise healthy people, and we?re turning them into patients," he said. "We need to do everything we can to [screen people] safely and minimize harms." Cancer


Enhanced Risk-Based Lung Cancer Screening May Prevent More Deaths than Current Approaches
Brand (Posted: Jan-11-2014 11AM)

NCI researchers have developed a risk model-based approach for selecting smokers and former smokers who may be candidates for lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT). Using data from two lung cancer screening studies and a U.S. health survey, the researchers estimated that the new approach might prevent more deaths from lung cancer over 5 years than would current screening recommendations. Results from the statistical analysis appeared in JAMA on May 15. The researchers developed and validated statistical models that identify smokers and former smokers who, based on an analysis of multiple risk factors for lung cancer, are at the highest risk of dying from the disease. The models take into account detailed information about all known risk factors, including age, smoking history, race, sex, body mass index, education, family history of lung cancer, and whether the person has emphysema. ?Our findings suggest that individualized risk assessments could not only help us avoid more lung cancer deaths but may also improve the effectiveness and efficiency of screening over current approaches,? said the study?s first author, Hormuzd Katki, Ph.D., of NCI?s Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. Reducing Lung Cancer Deaths Screening with low-dose CT scans was shown to lower the risk of dying from lung cancer among heavy smokers in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The trial demonstrated a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality among heavy smokers who received annual CT scans over 3 years, as compared with deaths among participants screened with a standard chest x-ray. Based on the trial results and additional modeling studies, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendsExit Disclaimer annual CT screening for individuals between 55 and 80 years old with a history of heavy smoking (at least one pack of cigarettes per day for 30 years or more) and who currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. In a previous analysis of NLST data, NCI researchers reported that CT screening prevented the greatest number of deaths from lung cancer among participants who were estimated to be at the highest risk and prevented very few deaths among those estimated to be at lowest risk. An individualized risk-based approach that further stratifies eligible smokers might better identify who will get the most benefit, noted Dr. Katki. Testing the Models To evaluate this strategy, the researchers compared it with the approach recommended by the USPSTF using risk models developed with data from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). They validated the models using data from PLCO, NLST, and the National Health Interview Survey. The authors estimate that 9 million current and former smokers meet the USPTF criteria, and that CT screening might prevent approximately 46,000 deaths from lung cancer over 5 years. However, the study authors found that the enhanced risk-based approach to select screening candidates from the same 9 million ?ever-smokers? might increase the number of lung cancer deaths prevented by approximately 20%?to an estimated 56,000 deaths prevented over 5 years. The researchers also estimated that the risk-based approach might improve lung cancer screening by two common measures of screening efficacy: decreasing the number of people who need to be screened to prevent one death (from 194 to 162) and reducing the number of false-positive test results per prevented death (from 133 to 116). The risk-based screening strategy may perform better than USPSTF recommendations, the study authors noted, in part because it identifies high-risk individuals who may benefit from, but are not currently eligible for, screening. This group includes people who have smoked less than one pack of cigarettes per day for decades and very heavy smokers who quit more than 15 years ago. In addition, the approach may identify individuals who are eligible based on age and smoking history alone but are at low risk of lung cancer and may benefit little from screening. ?The findings are provocative and support the notion that an enhanced risk-based approach to screening is potentially more effective and more efficient than performing a risk assessment based only on age and smoking history,? wrote Michael K. Gould, M.D., of Kaiser Permanente Southern California in an accompanying editorial. Looking Ahead In clinical practice, Dr. Gould noted, ?the decision to screen is very personal and should be individualized for each patient.? Doctors and patients need reliable information about the risks and potential benefits of lung cancer screening, he wrote. Among the risks is the potential for false-positive results that may lead to additional tests and unnecessary surgeries. The study authors cautioned that their estimates are based on statistical models rather than on observed outcomes. The models involve certain assumptions about implementation of the risk-based screening strategy, and more research would be needed to determine the most effective way to implement the strategy, they wrote. The study authors also noted that most deaths from lung cancer cannot be prevented by CT screening. ?The best way for smokers to reduce their risk of developing lung cancer?and all smoking-related illnesses?is to quit smoking as early as possible,? said Dr. Katki. Cancer


Familial risk of Sjögren's syndrome and co-aggregation of autoimmune diseases in affected families: A nationwide population study.
Kuo Chang-Fu et al. 2015 May 4. (Posted: Jan-01-2014 0AM)



Disclaimer: Articles listed in Hot Topics of the Day are selected by the CDC Office of Public Health Genomics to provide current awareness of the scientific literature and news. Inclusion in the update does not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor does it imply endorsement of the article's methods or findings. CDC and DHHS assume no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the items presented. The selection, omission, or content of items does not imply any endorsement or other position taken by CDC or DHHS. Opinion, findings and conclusions expressed by the original authors of items included in the Clips, or persons quoted therein, are strictly their own and are in no way meant to represent the opinion or views of CDC or DHHS. References to publications, news sources, and non-CDC Websites are provided solely for informational purposes and do not imply endorsement by CDC or DHHS.
TOP