Towards responsible ctDNA-based multi-cancer screening: a preliminary exploration and discussion of ethically relevant aspects

W. Dondorp
{"title":"Towards responsible ctDNA-based multi-cancer screening: a preliminary exploration and discussion of ethically relevant aspects","authors":"W. Dondorp","doi":"10.20517/evcna.2022.23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While testing for easily accessible biomarkers in the circulation (“liquid biopsy”) has found its way to clinical cancer care, a further expected development is its use as a “universal” early detection test in population screening for cancer. A promising marker for such screening is circulating cell-free fragments of tumor DNA, shed into the circulation during tumor cell turnover. Several blood-based “multicancer early detection (MCED) tests” have recently been developed - but still need validation in large-scale studies involving non-patient populations. In this paper, we proactively explore the ethical aspects of this development. We refer to an often quoted synthesis of the internationally accepted framework of principles for responsible screening as first drawn up for the World Health Organisation (WHO) by Wilson and Junger 50 years ago and further developed and fine-tuned ever since. As our analysis suggests, some specific ethical issues and concerns about potential MCED screening connect to the fact that cancer is not just one disease. As a consequence, not all findings will have the same clinical utility. We discuss this against the background of earlier debates pertaining to broad scope forms of screening in other contexts, specifically newborn and reproductive genetic screening. We highlight the guidance provided by some of the criteria from the screening framework that seems most relevant in this connection: the need for screening objectives to be defined at the outset, the need for mechanisms to minimize potential risks, and the requirement that, for those participating in the screening, the overall benefits outweigh the harm.","PeriodicalId":73008,"journal":{"name":"Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20517/evcna.2022.23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

While testing for easily accessible biomarkers in the circulation (“liquid biopsy”) has found its way to clinical cancer care, a further expected development is its use as a “universal” early detection test in population screening for cancer. A promising marker for such screening is circulating cell-free fragments of tumor DNA, shed into the circulation during tumor cell turnover. Several blood-based “multicancer early detection (MCED) tests” have recently been developed - but still need validation in large-scale studies involving non-patient populations. In this paper, we proactively explore the ethical aspects of this development. We refer to an often quoted synthesis of the internationally accepted framework of principles for responsible screening as first drawn up for the World Health Organisation (WHO) by Wilson and Junger 50 years ago and further developed and fine-tuned ever since. As our analysis suggests, some specific ethical issues and concerns about potential MCED screening connect to the fact that cancer is not just one disease. As a consequence, not all findings will have the same clinical utility. We discuss this against the background of earlier debates pertaining to broad scope forms of screening in other contexts, specifically newborn and reproductive genetic screening. We highlight the guidance provided by some of the criteria from the screening framework that seems most relevant in this connection: the need for screening objectives to be defined at the outset, the need for mechanisms to minimize potential risks, and the requirement that, for those participating in the screening, the overall benefits outweigh the harm.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
面向负责任的基于ctdna的多癌筛查:伦理相关方面的初步探索与讨论
虽然血液循环中易于获取的生物标志物检测(“液体活检”)已经找到了用于临床癌症治疗的方法,但进一步的发展是将其作为一种“通用”的早期检测方法,用于癌症人群筛查。这种筛选的一个有希望的标记是肿瘤DNA的循环无细胞片段,在肿瘤细胞周转过程中进入循环。最近开发了几种基于血液的“多癌早期检测(MCED)测试”,但仍需要在涉及非患者人群的大规模研究中得到验证。在本文中,我们积极探讨这一发展的伦理方面。我们指的是一个经常被引用的国际公认的负责任筛查原则框架的综合,该框架最初是由威尔逊和荣格尔在50年前为世界卫生组织(世卫组织)起草的,此后得到了进一步的发展和完善。正如我们的分析所表明的,一些特定的伦理问题和对潜在MCED筛查的担忧与癌症不仅仅是一种疾病这一事实有关。因此,并非所有的发现都具有相同的临床效用。我们讨论的背景是早期关于在其他情况下广泛的筛查形式的辩论,特别是新生儿和生殖遗传筛查。我们强调了筛选框架中似乎与此最相关的一些标准所提供的指导:在一开始就确定筛选目标的必要性,将潜在风险降至最低的机制的必要性,以及对参与筛选的人来说,总体利大于弊的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Flow cytometry for extracellular vesicle characterization in COVID-19 and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection Extracellular vesicles in tumor-adipose tissue crosstalk: key drivers and therapeutic targets in cancer cachexia Harnessing crosstalk between extracellular vesicles and viruses for disease diagnostics and therapeutics Endosomal escape mechanisms of extracellular vesicle-based drug carriers: lessons for lipid nanoparticle design Synovial fluid extracellular vesicles as arthritis biomarkers: the added value of lipid-profiling and integrated omics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1