JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute最新文献

Background: Ovarian cancer is among the leading causes of gynecologic cancer-related death. Past ovarian cancer screening trials using combination of cancer antigen 125 testing and transvaginal ultrasound failed to yield statistically significant mortality reduction. Estimates of ovarian cancer sojourn time-that is, the period from when the cancer is first screen detectable until clinical detection-may inform future screening programs.

Methods: We modeled ovarian cancer progression as a continuous time Markov chain and estimated screening modality-specific sojourn time and sensitivity using a Bayesian approach. Model inputs were derived from the screening arms (multimodal and ultrasound) of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening and the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian cancer screening trials. We assessed the quality of our estimates by using the posterior predictive P value. We derived histology-specific sojourn times by adjusting the overall sojourn time based on the corresponding histology-specific survival from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program.

Results: The overall ovarian cancer sojourn time was 2.1 years (posterior predictive P value = .469) in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian studies, with 65.7% screening sensitivity. The sojourn time was 2.0 years (posterior predictive P value = .532) in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening's multimodal screening arm and 2.4 years (posterior predictive P value = .640) in the ultrasound screening arm, with sensitivities of 93.2% and 64.5%, respectively. Stage-specific screening sensitivities in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian studies were 39.1% and 82.9% for early-stage and advanced-stage disease, respectively. The histology-specific sojourn times ranged from 0.8 to 1.8 years for type II ovarian cancer and 2.9 to 6.6 years for type I ovarian cancer.

Conclusions: Annual screening is not effective for all ovarian cancer subtypes. Screening sensitivity for early-stage ovarian cancers is not sufficient for substantial mortality reduction.

Background: Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)-derived pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is resected at smaller sizes compared to its biologically distinct counterpart, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)-derived PDAC. Thus, experts proposed T1 sub-staging for IPMN-derived PDAC. However, this has never been validated.

Methods: Consecutive upfront surgery patients with IPMN-derived PDAC from five international high-volume centers were classified by the proposed T1 sub-staging classification (T1a ≤ 0.5, T1b > 0.5 and ≤1.0, and T1c >1.0 and ≤2.0 cm) using the invasive component size. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were utilized to compare overall survival (OS). A multivariable Cox-regression was used to determine hazard ratios (HR) with confidence intervals (95%CI).

Results: Among 747 patients, 69 (9.2%), 50 (6.7%), 99 (13.0%), and 531 patients (71.1%), comprised the T1a, T1b, T1c, and T2-4 subgroups, respectively. Increasing T-stage was associated with elevated CA19-9, poorer grade, nodal positivity, R1-margin, and tubular subtype. Median OS for T1a, T1b, T1c, and T2-4 were 159.0 (95%CI:126.0-NR), 128.8 (98.3-NR), 77.6 (48.3-108.2), and 31.4 (27.5-37.7) months, respectively (p < .001). OS decreased with increasing T-stage for all pairwise comparisons (all p < .05). After risk-adjustment, age > 65, elevated CA19-9, T1b [HR : 2.55 (1.22-5.32)], T1c [HR : 3.04 (1.60-5.76)], and T2-4 [HR : 3.41 (1.89-6.17)] compared to T1a, nodal positivity, R1-margin, and no adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with worse OS. Disease recurrence was more common in T2-4 tumors (56.4%) compared to T1a (18.2%), T1b (23.9%), and T1c (36.1%, p < .001).

Conclusion: T1 sub-staging of IPMN-derived PDAC is valid and has significant prognostic value. Advancing T1 sub-stage is associated with worse histopathology, survival, and recurrence. T1 sub-staging is recommended for future guidelines.

Background: Breast cancer is comprised of distinct molecular subtypes. Studies have reported differences in risk factor associations with breast cancer subtypes, especially by tumor estrogen receptor (ER) status, but their consistency across racial and ethnic populations has not been comprehensively evaluated.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative, scoping literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, extension for Scoping Reviews to investigate consistencies in associations between 18 breast cancer risk factors (reproductive, anthropometric, lifestyle, and medical history) and risk of ER-defined subtypes in women who self-identify as Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latina, or White. We reviewed publications between January 1, 1990 and July 1, 2022. Etiologic heterogeneity evidence (convincing, suggestive, none, or inconclusive) was determined by expert consensus.

Results: Publications per risk factor ranged from 14 (benign breast disease history) to 66 (parity). Publications were most abundant for White women, followed by Asian, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latina women. Etiologic heterogeneity evidence was strongest for parity, followed by age at first birth, post-menopausal BMI, oral contraceptive use, and estrogen-only and combined menopausal hormone therapy. Evidence was limited for other risk factors. Findings were consistent across racial and ethnic groups, although the strength of evidence varied.

Conclusion: The literature supports etiologic heterogeneity by ER for some established risk factors that are consistent across race and ethnicity groups. However, in non-White populations evidence is limited. Larger, more comparable data in diverse populations is needed to better characterize breast cancer etiologic heterogeneity.

Background: With aging of the population and improvements in diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care, the number of cancer survivors in the United States (US) has increased; updated prevalence estimates are needed.

Methods: Cancer prevalence on January 1, 2022 was estimated using the Prevalence Incidence Approach Model, utilizing incidence, survival, and mortality. Prevalence by age decade, sex, and time from diagnosis were calculated. The percentage of cancer survivors in the projected US population by age and sex was calculated as the ratio of the sex-specific projected prevalence to the sex-specific projected US population.

Results: There were an estimated 18.1 million US cancer survivors as of January 1, 2022. From 2022 to 2030, the number of US cancer survivors is projected to increase to 21.6 million; by 2040, the number is projected to be 26 million. Long-term survivors are highly prevalent; in 2022, 70% of cancer survivors survived 5 years or more after diagnosis, and 11% of cancer survivors survived 25 years or more after diagnosis. Among all US females aged 40-54, 3.6% were cancer survivors; among females aged 65-74, 14.5% were cancer survivors; among females aged 85 and older, 36.4% were cancer survivors. Among all US males aged 40-54, 2.1% were cancer survivors; among males aged 65-74, 16% were cancer survivors; among those aged 85 and older, 48.3% were cancer survivors.

Conclusions: Cancer survivors are growing in number. In the US, most cancer survivors are long-term and very long-term survivors, representing a significant proportion of the US population.

The older American population is rapidly increasing, and millions of older adults will be cancer survivors with comorbidities. This population faces specific challenges regarding treatment and has unique clinical needs. Recognizing this need, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in collaboration with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), hosted a webinar series, entitled "Cancer, Aging, and Comorbidities." This commentary provides a reflection of five thematic areas covered by the webinar series, which was focused on improving cancer treatment for older adults with cancer and comorbidities: i) the impact of comorbidities on treatment tolerability and patient outcomes; ii) the impact of comorbidities on cancer clinical trial design; iii) the development of wearable devices in measuring comorbidities in cancer treatment; iv) the effects of nutrition and the microbiome on cancer therapy and; v) the role of senescence and senotherapy in age-related diseases. While advances have been made in these areas, many gaps and challenges exist and are discussed in this commentary. To improve cancer survivorship in older populations with comorbidities, aging and comorbidities must be jointly considered and incorporated across the spectrum of cancer research. This includes more basic research of the mechanisms linking comorbidities and cancer development and treatment response, building critical resources and infrastructure (eg, preclinical models and patient samples), conducting clinical trials focused on the older population, integrating geriatric assessment into cancer treatment, and incorporating novel technologies, such as wearable devices into clinical trials and cancer care.

Overall, gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) incidence rates have declined in recent years, but racial/ethnic disparities persist. Individuals who identify as Hispanic/Spanish/Latino are diagnosed with GC at younger ages and have poorer outcomes than non-Hispanic individuals. However, our understanding of GC biology across racial/ethnic groups remains limited. We assessed tumor genomic patterns by race/ethnicity among 1019 patients with primary GC in the AACR Project GENIE Consortium. Hispanic individuals presented with significantly higher rates of ERBB2/HER2 amplification vs other racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic: 13.9% vs 9.8% non-Hispanic White, 8.1% non-Hispanic Asian, and 11.0% non-Hispanic Black; p < .001, FDR adjusted q < 0.001). Hispanic patients also had higher odds of an ERBB2 amplification vs non-Hispanic whites in adjusted models (OR = 2.52, 95%CI = 1.20-5.33, p = .015). These findings underscore the important role of genomic factors in GC disparities. Ensuring equitable access to genomic profiling and targeted therapies, such as trastuzumab for HER2-overexpressing GC, is a promising avenue to mitigate GC disparities and improve outcomes.

Background: The current recommended starting age for gastric cancer (GC) lacks unified guideline and individualized criteria. We aimed to determine risk-stratified starting age for GC screening in China based on individuals' risk profiles, and develop an online calculator for clinical application.

Methods: In this multi-center population-based prospective study, we divided participants enrolled during 2015-2017 (n = 59,771, aged 40-69) into screened and unscreened groups and observed them for primary endpoints-GC occurrence, all-cause and GC-specific deaths. The median follow-up was 6.07 years. To determine the reference starting age, the effectiveness of GC screening was assessed by age-groups after propensity-score-matching. Further, we categorized the calculated individual risk scores (using well-established risk factors) by quantiles. Subsequently, we used age-specific 10-year cumulative risk curves to estimate the risk-stratified starting age-when the individual's risk level matches reference starting age risk threshold.

Results: During follow-up, 475 GC cases, 182 GC deaths and 1,860 all-cause deaths occurred. All-cause and GC-specific mortality decreased among screened individuals aged ≥45 and 50-59 years, respectively. Thus, the average population (reference) starting age was set as 50 years. The 10-year cumulative risk of GC in average population aged 50 was 1.147%. We stratified the starting age using eight risk factors, and categorized participants as low-, medium-, and high-risk individuals, whose risk-stratified starting age was 58, 50, and 46, respectively.

Conclusion: While high-risk individuals warrant 3-5 years earlier GC screening than average population (age 50), low-risk individuals can tolerate delayed screening. Our online, personalized starting-age calculator will help risk-adapted GC screening (https://web.consultech.com.cn/gastric/#/).

Background: Women with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer have an increased ovarian cancer risk. Yet it remains uncertain if common ovarian cancer risk factors-especially those which are modifiable-affect this high-risk population similarly to the general population.

Methods: Using the Danish and Swedish nationwide registers, we established two nested case-control study populations in women with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer (2,138 ovarian cancers, 85,240 controls) and women without (10,730 ovarian cancers, 429,200 controls). The overall and histology-specific associations were assessed with conditional logistic regression. The country-specific estimates were combined based on a fixed-effect assumption.

Results: Multiparity, hysterectomy, tubal ligation, salpingectomy, and oral contraceptive (OC) use were associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer in both women with and without a family history, while endometriosis and menopausal hormone treatment (MHT) were associated with increased risk. Multiparity and OC use presented protective effects across all histologic subtypes except mucinous ovarian cancer which was not associated with OC use. MHT increased the risk of serous ovarian cancer but decreased the risk of the mucinous and clear cell cancers. Endometriosis was especially related to an increased risk of endometrioid and clear cell ovarian cancer.

Conclusion: Factors associated with a decreased ovarian cancer risk were similar between women with and without a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Given the higher baseline risk for women with a family history, special attention should be paid to risk factors like endometriosis and nulliparity in this high-risk population.

Purpose: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) issued a 2021 memorandum adopting the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) task force recommendations to broaden clinical study eligibility criteria. They recommended that washout periods be eliminated for most prior cancer therapy and when required, to utilize evidence/rationale-based criteria. The Therapeutic Advances in Childhood Leukemia and Lymphoma (TACL) consortium responded to this guidance.

Process: A TACL task force reviewed the consortium's research portfolio, the relevant literature and guidance documents from ASCO-Friends, NCI, and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make expert consensus and evidence-based recommendations for modernizing, broadening and codifying TACL-study washout periods while ensuring consistency with pediatric ethics and federal regulations. TACL's screening log was reviewed to estimate the impact that updated washout periods would have on patient inclusivity and recruitment.

Results: Over a 19-year period, 42 patients (14.6% of all screened ineligible (n = 287) patients), were identified as excluded from TACL early-phase studies exclusively due to not meeting washout criteria. An additional six (2.1%) did not meet washout and at least one other exclusion criterion. A new TACL washout guidance document was developed/adopted for use. Where washout criteria were not eliminated, rationale/evidenced-based criteria were established with citation.

Conclusion: In an effort to reduce unnecessary exclusion from clinical trials, TACL created rationale/evidenced-based washout period standards largely following guidance from the NCI/ASCO-Friends recommendations. These new, expanded eligibility criteria are expected to increase access to TACL clinical trials while maintaining safety and scientific excellence.