首页 > 最新文献

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians最新文献

英文 中文
Bridging the cancer divide: Policy and structural solutions for equity in the United States. 弥合癌症鸿沟:美国公平的政策和结构性解决方案。
IF 254.7 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2026-01-01 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70054
Mariana Chavez-MacGregor,Inimfon Jackson
{"title":"Bridging the cancer divide: Policy and structural solutions for equity in the United States.","authors":"Mariana Chavez-MacGregor,Inimfon Jackson","doi":"10.3322/caac.70054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.70054","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"20 1","pages":"e70054"},"PeriodicalIF":254.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145760078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Consensus and controversy in advanced urologic cancers: Insights from the Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference (AUC3) 2025 晚期泌尿系统癌症的共识和争议:来自2025年晚期泌尿系统癌症共识会议(AUC3)的见解
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-13 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70056
Albert Jang MD, Yousef Zakharia MD, Pedro C. Barata MD, MSc
<p>Treatment advances in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and urothelial carcinoma (UC) have redefined patient outcomes within a single decade, transforming fatal diseases into chronic, manageable conditions for many. The widespread adoption of multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and the antibody–drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin (EV) has extended survival compared with historic standards. Yet this progress has introduced new complexity, including overlapping mechanisms, inconsistent success across trials, and limited generalizability because of narrow eligibility criteria along with the lack of reliable predictive biomarkers.</p><p>To translate this rapidly expanding evidence base into clinical clarity, the Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference (AUC3) assembled more than 50 multidisciplinary experts from North America and Europe.<span><sup>1</sup></span> By using a structured Delphi approach, the panel sought to define consensus thresholds and pinpoint gaps where data remain incomplete and controversial. This editorial highlights the most contentious issues (for which, even among global leaders, consensus was elusive) and frames future directions for investigation.</p><p>Pembrolizumab for high-risk clear cell RCC (ccRCC) after nephrectomy remains the first adjuvant regimen to demonstrate an overall survival benefit compared with placebo, as demonstrated in KEYNOTE-564 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03142334).<span><sup>2</sup></span> Strong consensus was reached (>90%) among the panel for high-risk ccRCC including pathologic T3 (pT3) or worse and lymph node-positive disease. Yet situations not addressed in the trial, such as stereotactic body radiation therapy to sites of oligometastatic disease within 1 year of nephrectomy, reached only 65.9% agreement for adjuvant pembrolizumab. Similarly, favorable pathology on the nephrectomy specimen (pT3a tumor, grade 1–2) reached only 54.5% in favor of adjuvant pembrolizumab, with the panel divided over treatment for lower risk patients.</p><p>Identifying low-risk patients who may be spared the toxicity of ICI is critical, but predictive biomarkers are lacking. At 72 months, 48.7% of patients receiving placebo in KEYNOTE-564 were still disease-free compared with 58.5% of those receiving pembrolizumab,<span><sup>3</sup></span> highlighting the importance of predicting the small subset of patients who truly derive benefit from pembrolizumab. Conversely, biomarkers of resistance are needed for the subset of patients likely to have disease relapse despite adjuvant pembrolizumab. They may require upfront adjuvant treatment intensification, and ongoing trials such as STRIKE of adjuvant pembrolizumab with tivozanib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06661720) and the recently announced positive trial LITESPARK-022<span><sup>4</sup></span> of adjuvant pembrolizumab with belzutifan (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05239728) may offer insight.</p><p>Several
肾细胞癌(RCC)和尿路上皮癌(UC)的治疗进展在短短十年内重新定义了患者的预后,将许多致命疾病转变为慢性、可控制的疾病。与历史标准相比,多靶点酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKIs)、免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)和抗体-药物偶联药物enfortumab vedotin (EV)的广泛采用延长了患者的生存期。然而,这一进展带来了新的复杂性,包括重叠的机制,不同试验的成功不一致,以及由于资格标准狭窄以及缺乏可靠的预测性生物标志物而限制的推广。为了将这一迅速扩大的证据基础转化为临床清晰,晚期泌尿系统癌症共识会议(AUC3)召集了来自北美和欧洲的50多名多学科专家。1通过使用结构化德尔菲方法,专家组试图定义共识阈值,并指出数据不完整和有争议的差距。这篇社论强调了最具争议的问题(即使在全球领导人之间,也难以达成共识),并为未来的调查指明了方向。KEYNOTE-564 (ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT03142334)显示,Pembrolizumab用于肾切除术后高风险透明细胞RCC (ccRCC)仍然是与安慰剂相比显示总体生存获益的第一种辅助方案对于高危ccRCC,包括病理性T3 (pT3)或更糟和淋巴结阳性疾病,专家组达成了强烈共识(&gt;90%)。然而,试验中未解决的情况,如在肾切除术后1年内对低转移性疾病部位进行立体定向全身放射治疗,仅达到65.9%的pembrolizumab辅助治疗的一致性。同样,对肾切除术标本(pT3a肿瘤,1-2级)有利的病理只有54.5%的人赞成辅助派姆单抗,对低风险患者的治疗意见分歧。鉴别出可能免于ICI毒性的低风险患者是至关重要的,但缺乏预测性的生物标志物。在KEYNOTE-564试验的72个月时,48.7%接受安慰剂的患者仍然无病,而接受派姆单抗的患者为58.5%,这突出了预测真正从派姆单抗中获益的一小部分患者的重要性。相反,尽管使用了辅助派姆单抗,但仍有可能出现疾病复发的患者亚群需要耐药的生物标志物。他们可能需要预先加强辅助治疗,正在进行的试验,如辅助派姆单抗与替瓦扎尼(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT06661720)的STRIKE和最近宣布的辅助派姆单抗与贝祖替芬(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT05239728)的阳性试验LITESPARK-0224可能会提供见解。目前已有几种已获批准的转移性ccRCC一线全身疗法,可分为ICI双药或ICI- tki联合治疗。与舒尼替尼相比,ipilimumab联合nivolumab治疗肉瘤样分化的共识很强(93.2%),基于高缓解率和更长的无进展生存期相比之下,对横纹肌样分化的治疗几乎没有共识,66.7%的人同意将横纹肌样分化与肉瘤样分化相似。对于国际转移性RCC数据库协会有利风险疾病的患者,使用ICI双药与ICI- tki的比例平均(50%),因为CheckMate 214 (ClinicalTrials.gov识别号NCT02231749)的最终长期随访显示,易普利姆单抗加纳volumab比舒尼替尼具有更持久的总生存反应由于缺乏头对头比较,没有就最佳ICI-TKI治疗达成共识。事实上,当根据国际转移性RCC数据库联盟风险标准对总生存率进行分层时,各种ICI-TKI方案的长期结果在整个3期试验中似乎是相似的。临床差距仍然存在于一线转移环境中。脑转移患者被排除在这些试验之外,因此在最佳方案上没有达成共识。少转移性疾病仍然存在争议,包括转移数量的定义,三个或更少的部位是首选的术语(60.5%)。少转移性复发的时机是否可以免除全身治疗是不确定的。对于在肾切除术后6个月内发生转移的单一部位,39.5%的患者反对针对转移的治疗,因为担心侵袭性疾病生物学需要全身治疗。需要对这些患者队列进行前瞻性研究。在一线治疗后,存在几种经批准的选择。 Belzutifan是继ICI和TKI进展后最新获批的药物;然而,由于其作为缺氧诱导因子2 α抑制剂的新颖性和独特的作用机制,在TKIs的早期或几条线之后使用它存在不确定性,小组没有达成共识。由于LITESPARK-005试验(ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT04195750)的对照组是依维莫司,因此是否用另一种TKI对抗贝祖替芬挑战难治性疾病尚不清楚各种低氧诱导因子2 α抑制剂正在早期治疗线的临床试验中进行评估,这可能会导致更多的混乱,而不是很快明确最佳方案。辅助用药派姆单抗的批准也引发了关于ICI再挑战与转移性复发的问题。已发表的3期试验均未涉及辅助ICI。在完成后3-6个月(78%)或更长时间,AUC3达成了再次挑战ICI的共识。然而,这些发现必须基于CONTACT-03和tinio -2试验(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符分别为NCT04338269和NCT04987203)的结果,在转移性环境下进行阴性ICI再挑战的前瞻性验证。9,10尽管大量可用的ccRCC证据可能会导致对清晰度的混淆,但缺乏对变型组织学的RCC的强有力的临床试验意味着没有清晰度。除了收集管肾细胞癌和肾髓样癌外,对于每种变异的最佳治疗方案没有达成共识。即使对于乳头状RCC(最常见和研究最充分的非ccrcc变体),只有68.3%的人倾向于ICI和TKI作为首选方案。历史上,许多变异型RCC试验同时招募了几种不同的组织学,考虑到每种亚型的数量很少,同时评估直接从ccrcc推断的治疗方法尽管这些变异的发病率很低,但由于这些变异的结果通常比ccRCC差,因此迫切需要专门的、针对亚型的试验。尽管RCC的治疗前景是丰富的,但不明确,UC领域正在探索一种不同的复杂性:如何将新的药物整合到长期存在的以铂为基础的骨干药物中。对于肌肉浸润性膀胱癌,NIAGARA试验(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03732677)比较了新辅助吉西他滨、顺铂和围手术期杜伐单抗与新辅助吉西他滨加顺铂(GC)因此,目前尚不清楚NIAGARA试验的三联组如何与新辅助剂量密集的甲氨蝶呤、长春花碱、阿霉素和顺铂进行比较,因为VESPER试验(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01812369)表明,6个周期的剂量密集的甲氨蝶呤、长春花碱、阿霉素和顺铂可能比4个周期的吉西他滨和顺铂产生更好的结果没有达成共识,推荐NIAGARA试验作为最佳的新辅助选择(66.7%)。对于局部上尿路UC的治疗,从CheckMate 274 (ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT02632409)的上尿路UC亚群分析来看,佐剂纳武单抗的疗效有限,但在POUT试验(ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT01993979)中有辅助化疗的数据,因此没有达成共识。随着依夫图单抗(EV)和派姆单抗作为基于EV-302的最佳一线全身治疗方案得到巩固,16个新的问题出现了。尽管EV-302排除了既往存在≥2级周围神经病变和未控制糖尿病的患者,但在现实环境中,人们一致认为应同时使用EV和派姆单抗。控制EV副作用的最佳方法尚未达成共识,包括控制轻度神经病变和延长皮疹持续时间的方法。如果发生转移性疾病,辅助ICI模糊了启动EV和派姆单抗的最
{"title":"Consensus and controversy in advanced urologic cancers: Insights from the Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference (AUC3) 2025","authors":"Albert Jang MD,&nbsp;Yousef Zakharia MD,&nbsp;Pedro C. Barata MD, MSc","doi":"10.3322/caac.70056","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70056","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Treatment advances in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and urothelial carcinoma (UC) have redefined patient outcomes within a single decade, transforming fatal diseases into chronic, manageable conditions for many. The widespread adoption of multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and the antibody–drug conjugate enfortumab vedotin (EV) has extended survival compared with historic standards. Yet this progress has introduced new complexity, including overlapping mechanisms, inconsistent success across trials, and limited generalizability because of narrow eligibility criteria along with the lack of reliable predictive biomarkers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To translate this rapidly expanding evidence base into clinical clarity, the Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference (AUC3) assembled more than 50 multidisciplinary experts from North America and Europe.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; By using a structured Delphi approach, the panel sought to define consensus thresholds and pinpoint gaps where data remain incomplete and controversial. This editorial highlights the most contentious issues (for which, even among global leaders, consensus was elusive) and frames future directions for investigation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pembrolizumab for high-risk clear cell RCC (ccRCC) after nephrectomy remains the first adjuvant regimen to demonstrate an overall survival benefit compared with placebo, as demonstrated in KEYNOTE-564 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03142334).&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Strong consensus was reached (&gt;90%) among the panel for high-risk ccRCC including pathologic T3 (pT3) or worse and lymph node-positive disease. Yet situations not addressed in the trial, such as stereotactic body radiation therapy to sites of oligometastatic disease within 1 year of nephrectomy, reached only 65.9% agreement for adjuvant pembrolizumab. Similarly, favorable pathology on the nephrectomy specimen (pT3a tumor, grade 1–2) reached only 54.5% in favor of adjuvant pembrolizumab, with the panel divided over treatment for lower risk patients.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Identifying low-risk patients who may be spared the toxicity of ICI is critical, but predictive biomarkers are lacking. At 72 months, 48.7% of patients receiving placebo in KEYNOTE-564 were still disease-free compared with 58.5% of those receiving pembrolizumab,&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; highlighting the importance of predicting the small subset of patients who truly derive benefit from pembrolizumab. Conversely, biomarkers of resistance are needed for the subset of patients likely to have disease relapse despite adjuvant pembrolizumab. They may require upfront adjuvant treatment intensification, and ongoing trials such as STRIKE of adjuvant pembrolizumab with tivozanib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT06661720) and the recently announced positive trial LITESPARK-022&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; of adjuvant pembrolizumab with belzutifan (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05239728) may offer insight.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Several ","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145732251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference (AUC3) 2025: Expert consensus on the management of renal cell and urinary tract cancers 2025年晚期泌尿系统癌症共识会议(AUC3):关于肾细胞癌和尿路癌管理的专家共识
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-13 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70052
Rana R. McKay MD, Sumanta Pal MD, Wanling Xie MS, David Aggen MD, PhD, Laurence Albiges MD, PhD, Andrea Apolo MD, Michael B. Atkins MD, Rick Bangs MBA, PMP, Kathryn E. Beckermann MD, PhD, Joaquim Bellmunt MD, PhD, Stephanie A. Berg DO, Mehmet A. Bilen MD, David Braun MD, PhD, Maria I. Carlo MD, Jason Efstathiou MD, DPhil, Matthew Galsky MD, Petros Grivas MD, PhD, Shilpa Gupta MD, Naomi Haas MD, A. Ari Hakimi MD, Hans Hammers MD, PhD, Daniel Y. C. Heng MSC, Michelle Hirsch MD, PhD, Gopakumar Iyer MD, Eric Jonasch MD, Vadim S. Koshkin MD, Oleksandr Kryvenko MD, Bryan Lewis JD, Roger Li MD, Surena Matin MD, Benjamin Maughan MD, PharmD, David F. McDermott MD, Bradley McGregor MD, Joshua Meeks MD, PhD, Matthew Milowsky MD, Robert Motzer MD, Andrea Necchi MD, Dan Petrylak MD, Sima Porten MD, MPH, Thomas Powles MBBS, MRCP, MD, Brian Rini MD, Brian Shuch MD, Arlene Siefker-Radtke MD, Guru Sonpavde MD, S. Srikala Sridhar MD, Cristina Suarez MD, PhD, Chad Tang MD, Abhishek Tripathi MD, Michiel S. Van Der Heijden MD, PhD, Martin Voss MD, Wenxin Xu MD, Tian Zhang MD, Jonathan Rosenberg MD, Toni K. Choueiri MD

The therapeutic landscape for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and urinary tract cancer (UTC) has transformed dramatically, creating complexity in treatment selection and sequencing. The 2025 Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference was convened to establish evidence-based expert consensus recommendations for optimal management. A multidisciplinary panel of 51 experts participated in a modified Delphi process addressing questions developed through iterative consensus-building covering RCC and UTC management. Voting occurred before and after the conference, and analyses focused on postmeeting responses. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus as >90%. Strong consensus was found on the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for higher risk RCC (pathologic T2 [pT2], grade 4; pT3–pT4, any grade; pTXN1; or fully resected metastatic disease) and on neoadjuvant therapy before cystectomy for localized UTC. There was strong consensus on the use of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as frontline therapy for metastatic UTC and the use of platinum-based chemotherapy postprogression in biomarker-negative UTC. For RCC, there was consensus on the role of single-agent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy after progression on frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy or dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. However, there was a lack of consensus on other critical areas in the management of RCC and UTC. The 2025 Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference provides evidence-informed guidance for complex clinical scenarios while identifying critical research priorities. The group recognizes that the lack of consensus across multiple areas highlights the need for improved patient selection and prospective studies enabling optimal combination and sequencing approaches. This iterative annual process will address evolving treatment paradigms to optimize outcomes.

肾细胞癌(RCC)和尿路癌(UTC)的治疗前景发生了巨大变化,在治疗选择和测序方面产生了复杂性。2025年晚期泌尿系统癌共识会议召开的目的是建立循证专家共识建议的最佳管理方法。一个由51名专家组成的多学科小组参加了修改后的德尔菲程序,处理通过反复建立共识而产生的问题,涉及RCC和联合技术公司的管理。投票发生在会议前后,分析集中在会议后的反应上。一致定义为≥75%的一致,强烈一致定义为90%。对于高风险RCC(病理T2 [pT2], 4级;pT3-pT4,任何级别;pTXN1;或完全切除的转移性疾病)和局部UTC膀胱切除术前新辅助治疗的使用,发现了强烈的共识。对于使用enfortumab vedotin + pembrolizumab作为转移性UTC的一线治疗,以及在生物标志物阴性的UTC进展后使用基于铂的化疗,存在强烈的共识。对于RCC,在一线免疫检查点抑制剂/血管内皮生长因子受体-酪氨酸激酶抑制剂治疗或双重免疫检查点抑制剂治疗进展后,单剂血管内皮生长因子受体-酪氨酸激酶抑制剂治疗的作用已达成共识。但是,在RCC和联合技术管理的其他关键领域缺乏共识。2025年晚期泌尿系统癌共识会议为复杂的临床情况提供循证指导,同时确定关键的研究重点。该小组认识到,在多个领域缺乏共识,强调需要改进患者选择和前瞻性研究,以实现最佳组合和测序方法。这个迭代的年度过程将解决不断发展的治疗范例,以优化结果。
{"title":"Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference (AUC3) 2025: Expert consensus on the management of renal cell and urinary tract cancers","authors":"Rana R. McKay MD,&nbsp;Sumanta Pal MD,&nbsp;Wanling Xie MS,&nbsp;David Aggen MD, PhD,&nbsp;Laurence Albiges MD, PhD,&nbsp;Andrea Apolo MD,&nbsp;Michael B. Atkins MD,&nbsp;Rick Bangs MBA, PMP,&nbsp;Kathryn E. Beckermann MD, PhD,&nbsp;Joaquim Bellmunt MD, PhD,&nbsp;Stephanie A. Berg DO,&nbsp;Mehmet A. Bilen MD,&nbsp;David Braun MD, PhD,&nbsp;Maria I. Carlo MD,&nbsp;Jason Efstathiou MD, DPhil,&nbsp;Matthew Galsky MD,&nbsp;Petros Grivas MD, PhD,&nbsp;Shilpa Gupta MD,&nbsp;Naomi Haas MD,&nbsp;A. Ari Hakimi MD,&nbsp;Hans Hammers MD, PhD,&nbsp;Daniel Y. C. Heng MSC,&nbsp;Michelle Hirsch MD, PhD,&nbsp;Gopakumar Iyer MD,&nbsp;Eric Jonasch MD,&nbsp;Vadim S. Koshkin MD,&nbsp;Oleksandr Kryvenko MD,&nbsp;Bryan Lewis JD,&nbsp;Roger Li MD,&nbsp;Surena Matin MD,&nbsp;Benjamin Maughan MD, PharmD,&nbsp;David F. McDermott MD,&nbsp;Bradley McGregor MD,&nbsp;Joshua Meeks MD, PhD,&nbsp;Matthew Milowsky MD,&nbsp;Robert Motzer MD,&nbsp;Andrea Necchi MD,&nbsp;Dan Petrylak MD,&nbsp;Sima Porten MD, MPH,&nbsp;Thomas Powles MBBS, MRCP, MD,&nbsp;Brian Rini MD,&nbsp;Brian Shuch MD,&nbsp;Arlene Siefker-Radtke MD,&nbsp;Guru Sonpavde MD,&nbsp;S. Srikala Sridhar MD,&nbsp;Cristina Suarez MD, PhD,&nbsp;Chad Tang MD,&nbsp;Abhishek Tripathi MD,&nbsp;Michiel S. Van Der Heijden MD, PhD,&nbsp;Martin Voss MD,&nbsp;Wenxin Xu MD,&nbsp;Tian Zhang MD,&nbsp;Jonathan Rosenberg MD,&nbsp;Toni K. Choueiri MD","doi":"10.3322/caac.70052","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70052","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The therapeutic landscape for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and urinary tract cancer (UTC) has transformed dramatically, creating complexity in treatment selection and sequencing. The 2025 Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference was convened to establish evidence-based expert consensus recommendations for optimal management. A multidisciplinary panel of 51 experts participated in a modified Delphi process addressing questions developed through iterative consensus-building covering RCC and UTC management. Voting occurred before and after the conference, and analyses focused on postmeeting responses. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus as &gt;90%. Strong consensus was found on the use of adjuvant pembrolizumab for higher risk RCC (pathologic T2 [pT2], grade 4; pT3–pT4, any grade; pTXN1; or fully resected metastatic disease) and on neoadjuvant therapy before cystectomy for localized UTC. There was strong consensus on the use of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab as frontline therapy for metastatic UTC and the use of platinum-based chemotherapy postprogression in biomarker-negative UTC. For RCC, there was consensus on the role of single-agent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy after progression on frontline immune checkpoint inhibitor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy or dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. However, there was a lack of consensus on other critical areas in the management of RCC and UTC. The 2025 Advanced Urologic Cancer Consensus Conference provides evidence-informed guidance for complex clinical scenarios while identifying critical research priorities. The group recognizes that the lack of consensus across multiple areas highlights the need for improved patient selection and prospective studies enabling optimal combination and sequencing approaches. This iterative annual process will address evolving treatment paradigms to optimize outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145732615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic radiotherapy-related adverse effects: A clinically focused review 高压氧治疗慢性放疗相关不良反应:临床重点回顾
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-12 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70058
Cas Stefaan Dejonckheere MD, Lukas Käsmann MD, MHBA, Leonard Christopher Schmeel MD, MHBA, Stefanie Walter MSc, MBH, Teresa Anzböck MD, Sven Dreyer MD, Gustavo Renato Sarria MD, MHBA, Eleni Gkika MD, MBA, Julian Philipp Layer MD, MHBA

Radiotherapy is a cornerstone of modern oncologic care, yet its sequelae can significantly impair survivors' quality of life. Chronic radiation-induced conditions—including skin fibrosis, bone necrosis, radiation cystitis, and proctitis—pose substantial challenges for both patients and caregivers, particularly in the context of improving long-term cancer survival. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, characterized by the promotion of angiogenesis, fibroblast activation, and tissue remodeling in hypoxic environments, has emerged as a potential adjunctive treatment for mitigating these late effects. Herein, the authors critically evaluate randomized trials, cohort studies, and real-world data while highlighting gaps in knowledge, including patient selection, optimal treatment protocols, and long-term outcomes. In addition, they discuss practical considerations and health system implications of the integration of hyperbaric oxygen therapy into survivorship care. The objective of this review is to provide clinicians with an evidence-informed framework to guide decision making in the multidisciplinary management of radiation-related late effects.

放射治疗是现代肿瘤治疗的基石,但其后遗症会严重损害幸存者的生活质量。慢性辐射诱发的疾病,包括皮肤纤维化、骨坏死、放射性膀胱炎和直肠炎,对患者和护理人员都构成了巨大的挑战,特别是在提高长期癌症生存率的背景下。高压氧治疗以促进缺氧环境下血管生成、成纤维细胞活化和组织重塑为特征,已成为缓解这些晚期效应的潜在辅助治疗方法。在本文中,作者批判性地评估了随机试验、队列研究和真实世界的数据,同时强调了知识上的差距,包括患者选择、最佳治疗方案和长期结果。此外,他们还讨论了将高压氧治疗整合到生存护理中的实际考虑和卫生系统影响。本综述的目的是为临床医生提供一个循证框架,以指导辐射相关晚期效应的多学科管理决策。
{"title":"Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for chronic radiotherapy-related adverse effects: A clinically focused review","authors":"Cas Stefaan Dejonckheere MD,&nbsp;Lukas Käsmann MD, MHBA,&nbsp;Leonard Christopher Schmeel MD, MHBA,&nbsp;Stefanie Walter MSc, MBH,&nbsp;Teresa Anzböck MD,&nbsp;Sven Dreyer MD,&nbsp;Gustavo Renato Sarria MD, MHBA,&nbsp;Eleni Gkika MD, MBA,&nbsp;Julian Philipp Layer MD, MHBA","doi":"10.3322/caac.70058","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70058","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Radiotherapy is a cornerstone of modern oncologic care, yet its sequelae can significantly impair survivors' quality of life. Chronic radiation-induced conditions—including skin fibrosis, bone necrosis, radiation cystitis, and proctitis—pose substantial challenges for both patients and caregivers, particularly in the context of improving long-term cancer survival. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, characterized by the promotion of angiogenesis, fibroblast activation, and tissue remodeling in hypoxic environments, has emerged as a potential adjunctive treatment for mitigating these late effects. Herein, the authors critically evaluate randomized trials, cohort studies, and real-world data while highlighting gaps in knowledge, including patient selection, optimal treatment protocols, and long-term outcomes. In addition, they discuss practical considerations and health system implications of the integration of hyperbaric oxygen therapy into survivorship care. The objective of this review is to provide clinicians with an evidence-informed framework to guide decision making in the multidisciplinary management of radiation-related late effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70058","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145729117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Interventional oncology: A primer for clinicians on the role of ablation and embolization for solid tumors 介入肿瘤学:临床医生对实体瘤消融和栓塞作用的入门。
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-10 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70051
Mohamed E. Abdelsalam MD, Kamran Ahrar MD, Rahul A. Sheth MD, Ketan Y. Shah MD, Steven Yevich MD, Varshana Gurusamy MD, Bruno C. Odisio MD, Alda L. Tam MD, Armeen Mahvash MD, Peiman Habibollahi MD

Interventional radiology (IR) is a rapidly evolving medical field that combines advanced imaging with minimally invasive techniques for both diagnosis and treatment. Interventional oncology (IO), a subspecialty of IR, focuses on the minimally invasive, image-guided intervention for cancer and cancer-related conditions. IR plays an important and increasingly recognized role within the multidisciplinary care of patients with cancer, contributing meaningfully to diagnosis, therapy, and palliation. IO therapies, particularly tumor ablation and transarterial embolization, aim to target tumors directly while preserving surrounding healthy tissue. These therapies are increasingly supported by clinical guidelines and have shown favorable outcomes in cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal cancer. This review focuses on the role of minimally invasive, image-guided, locoregional IR therapies for patients who have cancer.

介入放射学(IR)是一个快速发展的医学领域,它将先进的成像技术与微创技术相结合,用于诊断和治疗。介入肿瘤学(IO)是IR的一个亚专科,专注于对癌症和癌症相关疾病进行微创、图像引导的干预。IR在癌症患者的多学科治疗中发挥着重要的作用,并日益得到认可,对癌症的诊断、治疗和姑息做出了有意义的贡献。IO治疗,特别是肿瘤消融和经动脉栓塞,旨在直接靶向肿瘤,同时保留周围的健康组织。这些疗法越来越多地得到临床指南的支持,并在肝细胞癌、肾细胞癌和转移性结直肠癌等癌症中显示出良好的效果。本文综述了微创、图像引导、局部IR治疗在癌症患者中的作用。
{"title":"Interventional oncology: A primer for clinicians on the role of ablation and embolization for solid tumors","authors":"Mohamed E. Abdelsalam MD,&nbsp;Kamran Ahrar MD,&nbsp;Rahul A. Sheth MD,&nbsp;Ketan Y. Shah MD,&nbsp;Steven Yevich MD,&nbsp;Varshana Gurusamy MD,&nbsp;Bruno C. Odisio MD,&nbsp;Alda L. Tam MD,&nbsp;Armeen Mahvash MD,&nbsp;Peiman Habibollahi MD","doi":"10.3322/caac.70051","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70051","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Interventional radiology (IR) is a rapidly evolving medical field that combines advanced imaging with minimally invasive techniques for both diagnosis and treatment. Interventional oncology (IO), a subspecialty of IR, focuses on the minimally invasive, image-guided intervention for cancer and cancer-related conditions. IR plays an important and increasingly recognized role within the multidisciplinary care of patients with cancer, contributing meaningfully to diagnosis, therapy, and palliation. IO therapies, particularly tumor ablation and transarterial embolization, aim to target tumors directly while preserving surrounding healthy tissue. These therapies are increasingly supported by clinical guidelines and have shown favorable outcomes in cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and metastatic colorectal cancer. This review focuses on the role of minimally invasive, image-guided, locoregional IR therapies for patients who have cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145711022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Maintenance therapy after first-line therapy for ovarian cancer: Quantitative effectiveness 卵巢癌一线治疗后的维持治疗:定量疗效
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-09 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70057
Susana M. Campos MD, MPH, Jessica DiSilvestro MD, Stephanie V. Blank MD
<p>For patients with ovarian, peritoneal, and fallopian tube carcinoma, completing first-line treatment, maintenance therapy aims to stave off the risk of recurrence with the hope it will improve overall survival. Multiple trials, including the Gynecologic Oncology Group GOG-0218 trial,<span><sup>1, 2</sup></span> which investigated the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) bevacizumab; SOLO1<span><sup>3-5</sup></span> (olaparib; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01844986); PRIMA<span><sup>6, 7</sup></span> (niraparib; (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02655016); and PAOLA-1<span><sup>8</sup></span> (bevacizumab plus olaparib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT24777644) have uniquely and independently played pivotal roles in shaping the role of maintenance therapy in this patient population.</p><p>Specifically, PAOLA-1<span><sup>8</sup></span> investigated whether there was value in a combined maintenance strategy. This trial randomly assigned people with ovarian cancer (both homologous recombination-proficient [HRP] and homologous recombination-deficient [HRD]) to receive either maintenance bevacizumab plus the poly (ADP-ribose polymerase) inhibitor (PARPi) olaparib or bevacizumab plus placebo. Compared with bevacizumab plus placebo, there was a significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with HRD disease who received bevacizumab plus olaparib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–0.54). Among those with HRD disease because of a <i>BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i> mutation, combined treatment resulted in an overall survival benefit (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39–0.93); this was not reported among those who had HRP disease (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.88–1.63). Despite these results, notable limitations included the omission of a third arm in which participants received a PARPi alone and, as such, questions regarding the true as well as the <i>quantitative effectiveness</i> of bevacizumab plus olaparib versus treatment with olaparib alone remained unanswered. The only data to suggest a possible benefit to the combination come from an indirect comparison<span><sup>9</sup></span> of SOLO-1 and PAOLA-1, and the study suggested that adding bevacizumab to olaparib was associated with a <i>numerical</i>, although not statistically significant, improvement in PFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45–1.09).</p><p>In this issue of <i>CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians</i>, we get the results of FZOCUS-1, a randomized trial testing a PARPi, fuzuloparib, with a VEGFi, apatinib, as maintenance treatment after first-line therapy in ovarian cancer.<span><sup>10</sup></span> Participants were stratified by the presence or absence of germline <i>BRCA1</i> or <i>BRCA2</i> mutation and by response to primary treatment. They were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to one of three maintenance arms: fuzuloparib plus apatanib, fuzuloparib plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo.</p><p>Compared with placebo, treatment with either fuzuloparib plus placeb
对于卵巢癌、腹膜癌和输卵管癌患者,完成一线治疗后,维持治疗的目的是避免复发的风险,希望能提高总生存率。多项试验,包括妇科肿瘤组GOG-0218试验1,2,该试验研究了血管内皮生长因子抑制剂(VEGFi)贝伐单抗;SOLO13-5 (olaparib; ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT01844986);PRIMA6, 7 (niraparib; (ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT02655016);和PAOLA-18(贝伐单抗加奥拉帕尼(ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT24777644)在塑造维持治疗在该患者群体中的作用方面发挥了独特且独立的关键作用。具体来说,PAOLA-18调查了联合维护策略是否有价值。该试验随机分配卵巢癌患者(同源重组精通型[HRP]和同源重组缺陷型[HRD])接受维护性贝伐单抗加聚(adp -核糖聚合酶)抑制剂(PARPi)奥拉帕尼或贝伐单抗加安慰剂。与贝伐单抗联合安慰剂相比,接受贝伐单抗联合奥拉帕尼治疗的HRD患者在无进展生存期(PFS)方面有显著的获益(风险比[HR], 0.41; 95%可信区间[CI], 0.32-0.54)。在因BRCA1或BRCA2突变而患有HRD的患者中,联合治疗导致总体生存获益(HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93);这在HRP疾病患者中未见报道(HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.88-1.63)。尽管有这些结果,值得注意的局限性包括忽略了参与者单独接受PARPi的第三组,因此,关于贝伐单抗加奥拉帕尼与奥拉帕尼单独治疗的真实有效性和定量有效性的问题仍然没有答案。唯一表明联合用药可能获益的数据来自SOLO-1和PAOLA-1的间接比较,该研究表明,在奥拉帕尼中加入贝伐单抗与PFS的数值改善相关,尽管没有统计学意义(HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.09)。在这一期的CA: A Cancer Journal for clinical,我们得到了FZOCUS-1的结果,这是一项随机试验,测试PARPi (fuzuloparib)和VEGFi (apatinib)作为卵巢癌一线治疗后的维持治疗根据是否存在种系BRCA1或BRCA2突变以及对初级治疗的反应对参与者进行分层。他们以2:2:1随机分配到三个维持组之一:fuzuloparib + apatanib, fuzuloparib +安慰剂,或安慰剂+安慰剂。与安慰剂相比,fuzuloparib联合安慰剂(HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75)或fuzuloparib联合阿帕替尼(HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75)均可改善PFS。虽然阿帕替尼加氟唑帕尼组与单独加氟唑帕尼组相比,并没有延长PFS,且在任何组中均具有统计学意义,但在非hrp组中效果最明显。例如,总体人群中具有致病性BRCA变异的患者的风险比为1.11 (95% CI, 0.69-1.79), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.83-1.32), HRD患者的风险比为1.09 (95% CI, 0.83-1.44)。在HRP组中,联合治疗11个月的PFS比双药治疗16.6个月的PFS有无统计学意义的改善(HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.45-1.19),这表明联合治疗更有利于PFS的发展。尽管这项试验似乎可以解决PARPI和VEGFi联合作为维持治疗是否有好处的问题,但进一步的批判性研究是必要的。首先,作者选择使用阿帕替尼而不是更广泛使用的VEGFi贝伐单抗。尽管他们认为它们在疗效和毒性上是相同的,但在卵巢癌的情况下,它们并没有被直接比较。此外,作者强调,一项早期研究报告了fuzuloparib和apatinib之间的药物-药物相互作用:当联合使用时,与单独使用相比,apatinib的暴露减少了48%-65%。这促使降低fuzuloparib的起始剂量。这样,联合用药组中使用的fuzuloparib剂量比单独用药组低33%,这种必要的PARPi衰减可能导致联合用药缺乏更大的益处。这可能与早期对奥拉帕尼的研究有关,在这些研究中,口服剂量为100毫克,每天两次,其效果不如口服剂量为400毫克,每天两次。最终,尚不清楚该试验的结果是否使我们更接近于解决PARPi加VEGFi联合治疗是否优于单药PARPi维持治疗这一悬而未决的问题。 因此,我们期待其他旨在解决这一问题的一线维持试验入组,包括Nirvana (niraparib vs. niraparib +贝伐单抗[ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT05183984]), AGO-OVAR 28 (niraparib vs. niraparib +贝伐单抗[ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT05009082]);和MITO 25(贝伐单抗vs贝伐单抗联合鲁卡帕尼vs鲁卡帕尼)[ClinicalTrials.gov标识号NCT03462212])。这个问题只能用统计数据来回答,而不能用数字来回答,也不能用显著性或显著性趋势来回答,因为我们的假设应该是添加第二种药物的好处需要被证明。
{"title":"Maintenance therapy after first-line therapy for ovarian cancer: Quantitative effectiveness","authors":"Susana M. Campos MD, MPH,&nbsp;Jessica DiSilvestro MD,&nbsp;Stephanie V. Blank MD","doi":"10.3322/caac.70057","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70057","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;For patients with ovarian, peritoneal, and fallopian tube carcinoma, completing first-line treatment, maintenance therapy aims to stave off the risk of recurrence with the hope it will improve overall survival. Multiple trials, including the Gynecologic Oncology Group GOG-0218 trial,&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1, 2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; which investigated the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) bevacizumab; SOLO1&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3-5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; (olaparib; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01844986); PRIMA&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6, 7&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; (niraparib; (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02655016); and PAOLA-1&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; (bevacizumab plus olaparib (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT24777644) have uniquely and independently played pivotal roles in shaping the role of maintenance therapy in this patient population.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, PAOLA-1&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; investigated whether there was value in a combined maintenance strategy. This trial randomly assigned people with ovarian cancer (both homologous recombination-proficient [HRP] and homologous recombination-deficient [HRD]) to receive either maintenance bevacizumab plus the poly (ADP-ribose polymerase) inhibitor (PARPi) olaparib or bevacizumab plus placebo. Compared with bevacizumab plus placebo, there was a significant benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with HRD disease who received bevacizumab plus olaparib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32–0.54). Among those with HRD disease because of a &lt;i&gt;BRCA1&lt;/i&gt; or &lt;i&gt;BRCA2&lt;/i&gt; mutation, combined treatment resulted in an overall survival benefit (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39–0.93); this was not reported among those who had HRP disease (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.88–1.63). Despite these results, notable limitations included the omission of a third arm in which participants received a PARPi alone and, as such, questions regarding the true as well as the &lt;i&gt;quantitative effectiveness&lt;/i&gt; of bevacizumab plus olaparib versus treatment with olaparib alone remained unanswered. The only data to suggest a possible benefit to the combination come from an indirect comparison&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; of SOLO-1 and PAOLA-1, and the study suggested that adding bevacizumab to olaparib was associated with a &lt;i&gt;numerical&lt;/i&gt;, although not statistically significant, improvement in PFS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45–1.09).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;In this issue of &lt;i&gt;CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians&lt;/i&gt;, we get the results of FZOCUS-1, a randomized trial testing a PARPi, fuzuloparib, with a VEGFi, apatinib, as maintenance treatment after first-line therapy in ovarian cancer.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Participants were stratified by the presence or absence of germline &lt;i&gt;BRCA1&lt;/i&gt; or &lt;i&gt;BRCA2&lt;/i&gt; mutation and by response to primary treatment. They were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to one of three maintenance arms: fuzuloparib plus apatanib, fuzuloparib plus placebo, or placebo plus placebo.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Compared with placebo, treatment with either fuzuloparib plus placeb","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145704722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Human papillomavirus self-collection: The long road from scientific evaluation to implementation in screening programs 人乳头瘤病毒自我采集:从科学评估到筛查方案实施的漫长道路。
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-04 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70047
Nicolas Wentzensen MD, PhD, MS, Armando Baena MSc, PhD
<p>The understanding that persistent infections with human papillomavirus (HPV) cause nearly all cervical cancers has led to important cervical cancer prevention approaches: HPV vaccination is highly efficacious at preventing HPV infection when administered before infection occurs. In cervical cancer screening, HPV testing has higher sensitivity, provides longer reassurance when a test is negative, and has an overall better tradeoff of benefits and harms compared with cytology.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Consequently, HPV testing is gradually replacing cytology as a primary screening test in screening programs worldwide.</p><p>An additional benefit of HPV testing is that it can be conducted from self-collected vaginal specimens, with high concordance to clinician collected specimens. The article by Perkins et al.<span><sup>2</sup></span> describes the adoption of clinical guidelines for HPV self-collection developed by the Enduring Guidelines effort<span><sup>3, 4</sup></span> for the American Cancer Society cervical cancer screening guideline.<span><sup>5</sup></span></p><p>Using self-collected specimens for cervical cancer screening has great promise to expand screening to unscreened and underscreened populations who may not have access to clinician-based sampling or who may decide not to participate in screening to avoid pelvic examinations.</p><p>HPV self-collection is not a new development—the first studies evaluating self-collection were conducted in the 1990s and focused on different sampling strategies, including vaginal lavages, tampon collections, and vaginal brush devices.<span><sup>6-9</sup></span> Of these, vaginal sampling devices were the most successful and have become the standard for HPV self-collection today. More recently, urine-based HPV testing has been evaluated as a possible alternative to clinician and brush-based self-collection, with heterogeneous efficacy results to date.<span><sup>10</sup></span></p><p>Since the initial proof-of-concept studies, HPV self-collection has been evaluated in many, mostly cross-sectional studies, as summarized in a series of systematic reviews.<span><sup>11-14</sup></span> The systematic reviews demonstrate that polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests have high agreement for detection of HPV and cervical precancer between clinician-collected and self-collected specimens. They have also demonstrated the high acceptability of HPV self-collection, with several studies indicating that screening participants prefer self-collection over clinician-collection. There is strong evidence that high sensitivity for precancer detection using self-collected samples is only achieved with PCR-based HPV DNA tests, as opposed to signal amplification or messenger RNA-based tests, which are not considered equivalent. Several components need to be considered when evaluating HPV self-collection, including the type of HPV assay, the type of collection device, the type of storage until processing (e.g., dry s
在这两个项目中,最初的目标是为那些不定期参加筛查的人提供自我收集。然而,由于这些选择加入模式面临患者和提供者教育和实施的挑战,这两个项目现在都为所有筛查参与者提供HPV自我收集。在荷兰,所有年龄在30岁及以上的妇女都会通过邮寄的方式收到一套自取样试剂盒,使她们能够在家中进行检测那些有HPV阳性结果的人随后被邀请到他们的全科医生那里进行细胞学分类。18 .在澳大利亚,25岁至74岁的妇女可以通过保健提供者获得一个自我收集包16/18型HPV检测呈阳性的患者直接接受阴道镜检查,而其他致癌型HPV检测呈阳性的患者则接受细胞学分诊,如果细胞学异常,则接受阴道镜检查。该计划将自我收集整合到现有的筛查和随访途径中,以确保及时的临床管理。在美国,监管机构批准和临床建议表明,临床医生收集是首选,但自我收集是可以接受的,这允许广泛使用HPV自我收集。由于美国没有全国性的组织筛查计划,HPV自我收集的实施将因地方和地区而异。目前,一些综合医疗保健系统以及国家和联邦资助的筛查项目正在进行中。许多中低收入国家正在转向HPV自我收集,以缩小其在宫颈癌筛查覆盖率方面的差距。阿根廷、智利、哥伦比亚、墨西哥、秘鲁以及非洲和亚洲的其他一些国家要么将自我收集纳入其国家指导方针,要么启动了试点项目,主要针对30-65岁未接受筛查或从未接受筛查的妇女一般来说,中低收入国家的自我收集侧重于高风险和难以接触到的人群,利用现有的基于细胞学的基础设施、社区卫生工作者和已建立的随访系统。一些临床医生担心,自我收集放弃了临床医生取样所需的临床评估和盆腔检查,从而错过了盆腔检查的机会,而盆腔检查可能会导致其他健康问题的发现。然而,盆腔检查在平均风险个体中获得宫颈癌筛查样本之外的价值尚不清楚。人们提出的另一个担忧是,HPV自我采集可能作为一种非处方测试,可能导致不必要和未指明的测试,后果不明。然而,监管机构和临床指南已经明确指出,HPV自我采集是基于处方的,要求提供者下令进行检测,并与患者进行随访,告知检测结果并建议后续处理。尽管有许多相似之处,但自我收集和临床医生收集之间存在一些重要的差异,这些差异影响了目前自我收集的实施方式。首先,除了一些HPV检测提供的有限或扩展的基因分型之外,目前还没有经过验证和批准的可使用自采标本进行分类的检测。目前批准的分诊测试要么准确性不足(细胞学),要么在自行收集的标本中没有充分评估(双重染色)。从甲基化标记物的研究中得到了一些有希望的数据;然而,到目前为止,没有甲基化检测在美国得到充分的验证和批准。开发一种可靠的自采标本分诊方法是研究和开发的重中之重。因此,在筛查结果呈阳性的患者中,需要额外的临床采集样本,以便进行目前批准的分诊测试这可能需要额外的访问或在阴道镜检查时额外的样本收集,对于那些在自我收集后HPV16/18检测呈阳性的人来说。大多数自我收集研究都是横断面的,很少包括短期随访。缺乏长期的研究,以告知从自我收集的标本阴性HPV检测后的保证。尽管从横截面数据推断出长期的保证已经被广泛接受,用于评估临床采集的样本中基于pcr的新型HPV检测,但我们是否可以以同样的方式推断自我采集的样本尚不清楚,因为可能会取样不同的部位。因此,目前的指南建议,与临床采集标本检测为阴性的人相比,HPV自我采集标本检测为阴性的人筛查间隔为3年,而临床采集标本检测为阴性的人筛查间隔为5年。
{"title":"Human papillomavirus self-collection: The long road from scientific evaluation to implementation in screening programs","authors":"Nicolas Wentzensen MD, PhD, MS,&nbsp;Armando Baena MSc, PhD","doi":"10.3322/caac.70047","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70047","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The understanding that persistent infections with human papillomavirus (HPV) cause nearly all cervical cancers has led to important cervical cancer prevention approaches: HPV vaccination is highly efficacious at preventing HPV infection when administered before infection occurs. In cervical cancer screening, HPV testing has higher sensitivity, provides longer reassurance when a test is negative, and has an overall better tradeoff of benefits and harms compared with cytology.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Consequently, HPV testing is gradually replacing cytology as a primary screening test in screening programs worldwide.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;An additional benefit of HPV testing is that it can be conducted from self-collected vaginal specimens, with high concordance to clinician collected specimens. The article by Perkins et al.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; describes the adoption of clinical guidelines for HPV self-collection developed by the Enduring Guidelines effort&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;3, 4&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; for the American Cancer Society cervical cancer screening guideline.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Using self-collected specimens for cervical cancer screening has great promise to expand screening to unscreened and underscreened populations who may not have access to clinician-based sampling or who may decide not to participate in screening to avoid pelvic examinations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;HPV self-collection is not a new development—the first studies evaluating self-collection were conducted in the 1990s and focused on different sampling strategies, including vaginal lavages, tampon collections, and vaginal brush devices.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;6-9&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; Of these, vaginal sampling devices were the most successful and have become the standard for HPV self-collection today. More recently, urine-based HPV testing has been evaluated as a possible alternative to clinician and brush-based self-collection, with heterogeneous efficacy results to date.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since the initial proof-of-concept studies, HPV self-collection has been evaluated in many, mostly cross-sectional studies, as summarized in a series of systematic reviews.&lt;span&gt;&lt;sup&gt;11-14&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/span&gt; The systematic reviews demonstrate that polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests have high agreement for detection of HPV and cervical precancer between clinician-collected and self-collected specimens. They have also demonstrated the high acceptability of HPV self-collection, with several studies indicating that screening participants prefer self-collection over clinician-collection. There is strong evidence that high sensitivity for precancer detection using self-collected samples is only achieved with PCR-based HPV DNA tests, as opposed to signal amplification or messenger RNA-based tests, which are not considered equivalent. Several components need to be considered when evaluating HPV self-collection, including the type of HPV assay, the type of collection device, the type of storage until processing (e.g., dry s","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145664285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Screening for cervical cancer 子宫颈癌筛检
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-04 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70049
<p>The American Cancer Society (ACS) has updated its guideline recommendations for cervical cancer screening. The <i>cervix</i> is the bottom part of the uterus that connects it to the vagina. Regular screening for precancerous changes can greatly lower your chances of developing cervical cancer. This update reflects new research and advances in medical testing, and it builds on the previous ACS cervical cancer screening guideline from 2020.</p><p>If any of these apply to you, talk to your health care provider about screening and the right test for you.</p><p>The goal of cervical cancer screening is to find any abnormal conditions early so they can be treated before they develop into cancer. Screening can also find cervical cancer at an early stage when it is easier to treat.</p><p>There are two types of tests for cervical cancer screening.</p><p>Some HPV tests are approved to be used only as part of a <i>co-test</i>, that is, when an HPV test and a Pap test are done at the same time. Doing a co-test does not add much benefit compared with HPV testing alone. But a primary HPV test (HPV alone) may not be available in some settings, so co-testing every 5 years is still acceptable for screening. The sample for co-testing must be collected from the cervix by a health professional the same way it is done for a Pap test.</p><p>If none of the options for HPV testing are available, screening using only a Pap test is acceptable. Although all the screening tests are good at finding cancer and precancer, the primary HPV test finds more abnormal areas, and it finds them earlier than a Pap test done alone.</p><p>The most important thing to remember is to get screened regularly, no matter which test you get.</p><p>The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has now approved devices for people to collect their own samples from the vagina for HPV testing. Collecting vaginal samples can be done privately in a clinic setting, without the need for a health care provider present. An at-home self-collection kit is also available for use in some areas of the United States. If you choose to collect your own sample, a health care provider will need to order the test for you.</p><p><i>Note: An HPV test that you can order yourself off the internet may not be good quality. ACS recommends using only FDA-approved tests and collection devices, and these are only available through your health care provider.</i></p><p>Although some people may be more comfortable with collecting a vaginal sample for HPV testing, tests done using a sample collected by a healthcare professional are still preferred. This is because, if your HPV test is positive on a sample that your provider collected from the cervix, the lab can run more tests on that same sample to determine the next steps for you. But if a self-collected HPV test shows abnormal results, you’ll need to see a health care provider, who will collect a new sample from the cervix for more testing.</p><p>The goal of cervical cancer scree
美国癌症协会(ACS)更新了宫颈癌筛查的指南建议。子宫颈是连接子宫和阴道的子宫底部。定期检查癌前病变可以大大降低患宫颈癌的几率。这一更新反映了医学检测方面的新研究和进展,并以ACS之前的2020年宫颈癌筛查指南为基础。
{"title":"Screening for cervical cancer","authors":"","doi":"10.3322/caac.70049","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70049","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The American Cancer Society (ACS) has updated its guideline recommendations for cervical cancer screening. The &lt;i&gt;cervix&lt;/i&gt; is the bottom part of the uterus that connects it to the vagina. Regular screening for precancerous changes can greatly lower your chances of developing cervical cancer. This update reflects new research and advances in medical testing, and it builds on the previous ACS cervical cancer screening guideline from 2020.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If any of these apply to you, talk to your health care provider about screening and the right test for you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The goal of cervical cancer screening is to find any abnormal conditions early so they can be treated before they develop into cancer. Screening can also find cervical cancer at an early stage when it is easier to treat.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There are two types of tests for cervical cancer screening.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Some HPV tests are approved to be used only as part of a &lt;i&gt;co-test&lt;/i&gt;, that is, when an HPV test and a Pap test are done at the same time. Doing a co-test does not add much benefit compared with HPV testing alone. But a primary HPV test (HPV alone) may not be available in some settings, so co-testing every 5 years is still acceptable for screening. The sample for co-testing must be collected from the cervix by a health professional the same way it is done for a Pap test.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If none of the options for HPV testing are available, screening using only a Pap test is acceptable. Although all the screening tests are good at finding cancer and precancer, the primary HPV test finds more abnormal areas, and it finds them earlier than a Pap test done alone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The most important thing to remember is to get screened regularly, no matter which test you get.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has now approved devices for people to collect their own samples from the vagina for HPV testing. Collecting vaginal samples can be done privately in a clinic setting, without the need for a health care provider present. An at-home self-collection kit is also available for use in some areas of the United States. If you choose to collect your own sample, a health care provider will need to order the test for you.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Note: An HPV test that you can order yourself off the internet may not be good quality. ACS recommends using only FDA-approved tests and collection devices, and these are only available through your health care provider.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Although some people may be more comfortable with collecting a vaginal sample for HPV testing, tests done using a sample collected by a healthcare professional are still preferred. This is because, if your HPV test is positive on a sample that your provider collected from the cervix, the lab can run more tests on that same sample to determine the next steps for you. But if a self-collected HPV test shows abnormal results, you’ll need to see a health care provider, who will collect a new sample from the cervix for more testing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The goal of cervical cancer scree","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145664533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Self-collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing and guidance on screening exit: An update to the American Cancer Society cervical cancer screening guideline 用于人乳头瘤病毒检测的自采阴道标本和筛查退出指南:美国癌症协会宫颈癌筛查指南的更新。
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-04 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70041
Rebecca B. Perkins MD, MSc, Andrew M. D. Wolf MD, Timothy R. Church PhD, Elena B. Elkin PhD, MPA, Steven J. Skates PhD, Ruth D. Etzioni PhD, Carmen E. Guerra MD, MSCE, Abbe Herzig PhD, Richard M. Hoffman MD, MPH, Kevin C. Oeffinger MD, Sana Raoof MD, PhD, Ya-Chen Tina Shih PhD, Louise C. Walter MD, Charnita Zeigler-Johnson PhD, Deana Manassaram-Baptiste PhD, MPH, Robert A. Smith PhD

This update expands the 2020 American Cancer Society (ACS) cervical cancer screening guideline for average-risk women and individuals with a cervix who are at average risk, to include self-collection for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and revised guidance for exiting cervical cancer screening. Self-collected vaginal specimens, a method of primary HPV testing, align with the ACS cervical cancer screening guideline. When clinician-collected cervical specimens are used for HPV testing, repeat screening is recommended every 5 years for those with a negative test. For self-collected vaginal specimens, the ACS endorses the following recommendations of the Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee (of which it is a member): (1) primary HPV screening using clinician-collected cervical specimens is preferred, and self-collected vaginal specimens are acceptable for average-risk individuals aged 25–65 years; and (2) repeat testing in 3 years is recommended after a negative result on a self-collected HPV screening test. These recommendations apply only to combinations of collection devices and HPV assays approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HPV testing in a clinical setting or at home. The rationale notes that the use of self-collected vaginal specimens can overcome barriers to screening for many patients, but most patients who test HPV-positive will require extra follow-up steps, and data on long-term, real-world effectiveness are limited. For certain high-risk individuals, clinician-collected samples are still recommended. Furthermore, in response to high rates of cervical cancer among individuals older than 65 years and with poor implementation of current exiting screening criteria, ACS has amended the 2020 guideline to recommend HPV testing at ages 60 and 65 years, with the last HPV test at an age no younger than 65 years as a requisite to exiting screening. The revised recommendation states: To qualify for discontinuation of screening, the ACS recommends an average-risk woman or an individual with a cervix at average risk have negative primary HPV tests (preferred) or negative co-testing using HPV tests and cytology (acceptable) at ages 60 and 65 years. If primary HPV tests or co-testing are not available, three consecutive negative cytology (Papanicolaou) tests at the recommended screening interval with the last test at age 65 years are acceptable. If self-collected vaginal specimens are used for HPV testing, the 3-year testing interval should be followed. Additional screening exit stipulations relate to women at higher risk because of prior abnormal test results or current immune suppression.

本次更新扩大了2020年美国癌症协会(ACS)针对平均风险妇女和平均风险宫颈患者的宫颈癌筛查指南,包括人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)检测的自我收集和现有宫颈癌筛查的修订指南。自行收集阴道标本,一种原发性HPV检测方法,符合ACS宫颈癌筛查指南。当使用临床采集的宫颈标本进行HPV检测时,对于检测结果呈阴性的人,建议每5年重复筛查一次。对于自行采集的阴道标本,ACS赞同持久共识宫颈癌筛查和管理指南委员会(ACS是其成员之一)的以下建议:(1)首选使用临床采集的宫颈标本进行原发性HPV筛查,对于25-65岁的平均风险个体,可接受自行采集的阴道标本;(2)自我收集的HPV筛查结果呈阴性后,建议在3年内重复检测。这些建议仅适用于经美国食品和药物管理局批准用于临床或家庭HPV检测的收集设备和HPV检测方法的组合。其基本原理指出,使用自行收集的阴道标本可以克服许多患者筛查的障碍,但大多数hpv检测呈阳性的患者将需要额外的随访步骤,而且关于长期实际有效性的数据有限。对于某些高危人群,仍建议临床采集样本。此外,针对65岁以上人群宫颈癌高发以及现行筛查标准执行不佳的情况,ACS修订了2020年指南,建议在60岁和65岁时进行HPV检测,最后一次HPV检测的年龄不低于65岁,作为退出筛查的必要条件。修订后的建议指出:为了有资格停止筛查,ACS建议平均风险女性或宫颈平均风险个体在60岁和65岁时进行HPV原发检测阴性(首选)或HPV检测和细胞学联合检测阴性(可接受)。如果没有原发性HPV检测或联合检测,可以在推荐的筛查间隔内连续进行三次阴性细胞学(Papanicolaou)检测,最后一次检测在65岁时进行。如果使用自行收集的阴道标本进行HPV检测,则应遵循3年的检测间隔。额外的筛查退出规定涉及由于先前的异常检查结果或目前的免疫抑制而具有较高风险的妇女。
{"title":"Self-collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus testing and guidance on screening exit: An update to the American Cancer Society cervical cancer screening guideline","authors":"Rebecca B. Perkins MD, MSc,&nbsp;Andrew M. D. Wolf MD,&nbsp;Timothy R. Church PhD,&nbsp;Elena B. Elkin PhD, MPA,&nbsp;Steven J. Skates PhD,&nbsp;Ruth D. Etzioni PhD,&nbsp;Carmen E. Guerra MD, MSCE,&nbsp;Abbe Herzig PhD,&nbsp;Richard M. Hoffman MD, MPH,&nbsp;Kevin C. Oeffinger MD,&nbsp;Sana Raoof MD, PhD,&nbsp;Ya-Chen Tina Shih PhD,&nbsp;Louise C. Walter MD,&nbsp;Charnita Zeigler-Johnson PhD,&nbsp;Deana Manassaram-Baptiste PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Robert A. Smith PhD","doi":"10.3322/caac.70041","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70041","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This update expands the 2020 American Cancer Society (ACS) cervical cancer screening guideline for average-risk women and individuals with a cervix who are at average risk, to include self-collection for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and revised guidance for exiting cervical cancer screening. Self-collected vaginal specimens, a method of primary HPV testing, align with the ACS cervical cancer screening guideline. When clinician-collected cervical specimens are used for HPV testing, repeat screening is recommended every 5 years for those with a negative test. For self-collected vaginal specimens, the ACS endorses the following recommendations of the Enduring Consensus Cervical Cancer Screening and Management Guidelines Committee (of which it is a member): (1) primary HPV screening using clinician-collected cervical specimens is preferred, and self-collected vaginal specimens are acceptable for average-risk individuals aged 25–65 years; and (2) repeat testing in 3 years is recommended after a negative result on a self-collected HPV screening test. These recommendations apply only to combinations of collection devices and HPV assays approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HPV testing in a clinical setting or at home. The rationale notes that the use of self-collected vaginal specimens can overcome barriers to screening for many patients, but most patients who test HPV-positive will require extra follow-up steps, and data on long-term, real-world effectiveness are limited. For certain high-risk individuals, clinician-collected samples are still recommended. Furthermore, in response to high rates of cervical cancer among individuals older than 65 years and with poor implementation of current exiting screening criteria, ACS has amended the 2020 guideline to recommend HPV testing at ages 60 and 65 years, with the last HPV test at an age no younger than 65 years as a requisite to exiting screening. The revised recommendation states: <i>To qualify for discontinuation of screening, the ACS recommends an average-risk woman or an individual with a cervix at average risk have negative primary HPV tests (preferred) or negative co-testing using HPV tests and cytology (acceptable) at ages 60 and 65 years.</i> If primary HPV tests or co-testing are not available, three consecutive negative cytology (Papanicolaou) tests at the recommended screening interval with the last test at age 65 years are acceptable. If self-collected vaginal specimens are used for HPV testing, the 3-year testing interval should be followed. Additional screening exit stipulations relate to women at higher risk because of prior abnormal test results or current immune suppression.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70041","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145664286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Global incidence of lip, oral cavity, and pharyngeal cancers by subsite in 2022 2022年全球唇部、口腔和咽癌亚位点发病率
IF 232.4 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Pub Date : 2025-12-03 DOI: 10.3322/caac.70048
Harriet Rumgay PhD, Murielle Colombet MSc, Amanda Ramos da Cunha DDS, MSc, PhD, Adalberto M. Filho PhD, Saman Warnakulasuriya DSc, David I. Conway BDS, MPH, PhD, Anil Chaturvedi PhD, Shama Virani PhD, Beatrice Lauby-Secretan PhD, Andre L. Carvalho MD, PhD, MPH, Suzanne T. Nethan MDS, MPH, Ahmedin Jemal DVM, PhD, Freddie Bray BSc, MSc, PhD

Cancers of the lip, oral cavity, and pharynx (LOCP) represent a substantial public health challenge worldwide. Using GLOBOCAN national estimates of incidence, detailed cancer registry data from Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, and population statistics from the United Nations, the authors report the distribution of new cases of LOCP cancers in 185 countries by sex in 2022. Age-standardized incidence rates were calculated. For countries lacking registry data, regional averages from high-quality registries were used to impute subsite-specific estimates. Worldwide, 758,000 people were diagnosed with LOCP cancers in 2022, with oral cavity cancer accounting for approximately 42% of cases, followed by oropharynx (19.3%), nasopharynx (15.9%), hypopharynx (11.4%), salivary gland (7.3%), and lip (4.2%) cancers. Oral cavity cancer was the most frequent LOCP subsite among women in 141 countries and among men in 93 countries, and incidence rates were highest in countries in South-Central Asia. Oropharyngeal cancer was the most frequent LOCP subsite among men in 44 countries and among women in five countries across Europe, Northern America, South America, Australia, and New Zealand. Nasopharyngeal cancer was the most common subsite among men in 39 countries and women in 23 countries, mainly in Northern Africa, Middle Africa, and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia. Rates of hypopharyngeal and salivary gland cancers were low globally, although the incidence burden was greater than that of lip cancer. The authors discuss incidence patterns in relation to disease etiology and the prospects of delivering effective cancer control measures, spanning primary prevention, early detection, cancer treatment, and survivorship.

唇、口腔和咽部癌症(LOCP)是世界范围内重大的公共卫生挑战。作者使用GLOBOCAN国家发病率估计,五大洲癌症发病率的详细癌症登记数据以及联合国的人口统计数据,报告了2022年185个国家按性别划分的LOCP癌症新病例分布。计算年龄标准化发病率。对于缺乏登记数据的国家,使用来自高质量登记的区域平均值来估算亚点特定估计值。2022年,全球有75.8万人被诊断为LOCP癌症,其中口腔癌约占病例的42%,其次是口咽癌(19.3%)、鼻咽癌(15.9%)、下咽癌(11.4%)、唾液腺癌(7.3%)和唇部癌(4.2%)。在141个国家的女性和93个国家的男性中,口腔癌是最常见的LOCP亚位点,发病率在中南亚国家最高。口咽癌是44个国家男性和欧洲、北美、南美、澳大利亚和新西兰5个国家女性中最常见的LOCP亚位点。在39个国家的男性和23个国家的女性中,鼻咽癌是最常见的亚位点,主要在北非、中非、东亚和东南亚。下咽癌和唾液腺癌的发病率在全球范围内较低,尽管发病率负担大于唇部癌。作者讨论了与疾病病因有关的发病率模式,以及提供有效癌症控制措施的前景,包括初级预防、早期发现、癌症治疗和生存。
{"title":"Global incidence of lip, oral cavity, and pharyngeal cancers by subsite in 2022","authors":"Harriet Rumgay PhD,&nbsp;Murielle Colombet MSc,&nbsp;Amanda Ramos da Cunha DDS, MSc, PhD,&nbsp;Adalberto M. Filho PhD,&nbsp;Saman Warnakulasuriya DSc,&nbsp;David I. Conway BDS, MPH, PhD,&nbsp;Anil Chaturvedi PhD,&nbsp;Shama Virani PhD,&nbsp;Beatrice Lauby-Secretan PhD,&nbsp;Andre L. Carvalho MD, PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Suzanne T. Nethan MDS, MPH,&nbsp;Ahmedin Jemal DVM, PhD,&nbsp;Freddie Bray BSc, MSc, PhD","doi":"10.3322/caac.70048","DOIUrl":"10.3322/caac.70048","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Cancers of the lip, oral cavity, and pharynx (LOCP) represent a substantial public health challenge worldwide. Using GLOBOCAN national estimates of incidence, detailed cancer registry data from <i>Cancer Incidence in Five Continents</i>, and population statistics from the United Nations, the authors report the distribution of new cases of LOCP cancers in 185 countries by sex in 2022. Age-standardized incidence rates were calculated. For countries lacking registry data, regional averages from high-quality registries were used to impute subsite-specific estimates. Worldwide, 758,000 people were diagnosed with LOCP cancers in 2022, with oral cavity cancer accounting for approximately 42% of cases, followed by oropharynx (19.3%), nasopharynx (15.9%), hypopharynx (11.4%), salivary gland (7.3%), and lip (4.2%) cancers. Oral cavity cancer was the most frequent LOCP subsite among women in 141 countries and among men in 93 countries, and incidence rates were highest in countries in South-Central Asia. Oropharyngeal cancer was the most frequent LOCP subsite among men in 44 countries and among women in five countries across Europe, Northern America, South America, Australia, and New Zealand. Nasopharyngeal cancer was the most common subsite among men in 39 countries and women in 23 countries, mainly in Northern Africa, Middle Africa, and Eastern and South-Eastern Asia. Rates of hypopharyngeal and salivary gland cancers were low globally, although the incidence burden was greater than that of lip cancer. The authors discuss incidence patterns in relation to disease etiology and the prospects of delivering effective cancer control measures, spanning primary prevention, early detection, cancer treatment, and survivorship.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":232.4,"publicationDate":"2025-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.70048","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145658082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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