Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-B12
O. Moran, Dina Nikitina, A. Gunasekara, M. Yaffe, K. Metcalfe, S. Narod, J. Kotsopoulos
Purpose: Mammographic density (MD) reflects the proportion of dense tissue in relation to non-dense tissue in the breast and is the strongest biological marker of breast cancer risk. MD is known to be higher among women with a family history compared to women in the general population. We have previously demonstrated that women with a strong family history of breast cancer but no BRCA mutation face an elevated lifetime risk of breast cancer estimated at 40% compared to 11% in the general population. Various lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and body mass index (BMI), have been shown to modify MD in the general population. It is of interest to determine if such an association exists among high-risk women. Objective: To evaluate the relationship between physical activity, BMI and MD in high-risk women. Methods: This study included 100 women enrolled in an on-going prospective study of high-risk women with a strong family history of breast cancer (two first-degree relatives with breast cancer under age 50 or three cases at any age) and no identified BRCA mutations in their families. Current physical activity levels and BMI were collected using self-reported questionnaires. Physical activity was defined as moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Two dichotomous variables were created to define high vs. low MVPA levels: 1) based on the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology guideline of 2.5 hours of MVPA per week and 2) the 75th percentile of MVPA in the sample (3.5 hours per week). A BMI of 25 or more was defined as high using the World Health Organization criteria of overweight. Mammograms were assigned a percentage of density (0 - 100%) using a computer-assisted method (Cumulus 6). Multivariate linear regression modelling was used to evaluate the relationships between both MVPA and BMI with MD while adjusting for age, menopausal status, and parity. BMI models also adjusted for MVPA (continuous) and MVPA models adjusted for BMI (continuous). Results: Among all women, those with a high BMI had significantly lower mean percent density compared to women with a low BMI (13% vs. 23%; P = 0.01). This association was stronger for premenopausal (27% vs. 37%; P = 0.06) vs. postmenopausal (12% vs. 20%; P = 0.10) women. Women who engaged in MVPA for 2.5 hours per week or more had significantly greater mean percent density compared to women who were less physically active (29% vs. 22%; P = 0.04). This relationship did not vary by menopausal status (P ≥ 0.15). Based on the 75th percentile of MVPA, women with high MVPA levels had significantly greater mean percent density compared to women with low MVPA levels (31% vs. 22%; P = 0.02). This relationship was significant for postmenopausal (26% vs. 13%; P = 0.04) but not premenopausal (31% vs. 25%; P = 0.27) women. Conclusion: In this cohort of high-risk women, high BMI was associated with lower MD that was suggestively stronger for premenopausal women. Although preliminary, these findings sugges
目的:乳腺密度(MD)反映乳腺中致密组织相对于非致密组织的比例,是乳腺癌风险最强的生物学标志物。众所周知,有家族病史的女性患MD的几率比一般人群中的女性高。我们之前已经证明,有强烈的乳腺癌家族史但没有BRCA突变的女性一生中患乳腺癌的风险估计为40%,而普通人群的这一风险为11%。各种生活方式因素,如体力活动和身体质量指数(BMI),已被证明可以改变普通人群的MD。确定这种关联是否存在于高危妇女中是有意义的。目的:探讨高危女性身体活动、BMI与MD的关系。方法:本研究纳入了100名女性,她们参加了一项正在进行的前瞻性研究,这些女性具有强烈的乳腺癌家族史(两名一级亲属患有50岁以下的乳腺癌或三例任何年龄的乳腺癌),她们的家庭中没有发现BRCA突变。目前的身体活动水平和身体质量指数是通过自我报告的问卷收集的。体力活动定义为中度至剧烈体力活动(MVPA)。创建了两个二分类变量来定义高与低MVPA水平:1)基于加拿大运动生理学协会每周2.5小时的MVPA指南,2)样本中第75百分位的MVPA(每周3.5小时)。根据世界卫生组织(World Health Organization)的超重标准,BMI≥25被定义为超重。使用计算机辅助方法(Cumulus 6)为乳房x线照片分配密度百分比(0 - 100%)。在调整年龄、绝经状态和胎次的同时,使用多元线性回归模型评估MVPA和BMI与MD之间的关系。BMI模型也根据MVPA(连续)和MVPA模型根据BMI(连续)进行调整。结果:在所有女性中,BMI指数高的女性的平均百分比密度明显低于BMI指数低的女性(13%对23%;P = 0.01)。绝经前患者的相关性更强(27% vs 37%;P = 0.06) vs.绝经后(12% vs. 20%;P = 0.10)。每周从事MVPA 2.5小时或更长时间的女性与体力活动较少的女性相比,其平均百分比密度显著更高(29%对22%;P = 0.04)。这种关系没有因绝经状态而改变(P≥0.15)。根据MVPA的第75百分位,MVPA水平高的女性比MVPA水平低的女性有更大的平均百分比密度(31%比22%;P = 0.02)。这种关系在绝经后人群中更为显著(26% vs. 13%;P = 0.04),但绝经前(31% vs. 25%;P = 0.27)。结论:在这组高危妇女中,高BMI与低MD相关,绝经前妇女的低MD更明显。虽然是初步的,但这些发现提示了一种可能的机制,即生活方式因素可能影响高危女性的MD,并可能影响乳腺癌风险。需要更大样本量的进一步评估来阐明体力活动以及其他可改变因素与该女性队列中MD之间的关系。越来越多的证据支持将MD纳入乳腺癌风险预测模型,从而为患病风险增加的女性改善个体化治疗和预防策略。引文格式:Olivia M. Moran, Dina Nikitina, Anoma Gunasekara, Martin J. Yaffe, Kelly A. Metcalfe, Steven A. Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos。BRCA突变阴性的高危女性,体力活动和体型对乳房x线摄影密度的影响[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;Cancer epidemiology Biomarkers pre2017;26(5增刊):摘要nr B12。
{"title":"Abstract B12: The effect of physical activity and body size on mammographic density in high-risk, BRCA mutation-negative women","authors":"O. Moran, Dina Nikitina, A. Gunasekara, M. Yaffe, K. Metcalfe, S. Narod, J. Kotsopoulos","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-B12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-B12","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Mammographic density (MD) reflects the proportion of dense tissue in relation to non-dense tissue in the breast and is the strongest biological marker of breast cancer risk. MD is known to be higher among women with a family history compared to women in the general population. We have previously demonstrated that women with a strong family history of breast cancer but no BRCA mutation face an elevated lifetime risk of breast cancer estimated at 40% compared to 11% in the general population. Various lifestyle factors, such as physical activity and body mass index (BMI), have been shown to modify MD in the general population. It is of interest to determine if such an association exists among high-risk women. Objective: To evaluate the relationship between physical activity, BMI and MD in high-risk women. Methods: This study included 100 women enrolled in an on-going prospective study of high-risk women with a strong family history of breast cancer (two first-degree relatives with breast cancer under age 50 or three cases at any age) and no identified BRCA mutations in their families. Current physical activity levels and BMI were collected using self-reported questionnaires. Physical activity was defined as moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Two dichotomous variables were created to define high vs. low MVPA levels: 1) based on the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology guideline of 2.5 hours of MVPA per week and 2) the 75th percentile of MVPA in the sample (3.5 hours per week). A BMI of 25 or more was defined as high using the World Health Organization criteria of overweight. Mammograms were assigned a percentage of density (0 - 100%) using a computer-assisted method (Cumulus 6). Multivariate linear regression modelling was used to evaluate the relationships between both MVPA and BMI with MD while adjusting for age, menopausal status, and parity. BMI models also adjusted for MVPA (continuous) and MVPA models adjusted for BMI (continuous). Results: Among all women, those with a high BMI had significantly lower mean percent density compared to women with a low BMI (13% vs. 23%; P = 0.01). This association was stronger for premenopausal (27% vs. 37%; P = 0.06) vs. postmenopausal (12% vs. 20%; P = 0.10) women. Women who engaged in MVPA for 2.5 hours per week or more had significantly greater mean percent density compared to women who were less physically active (29% vs. 22%; P = 0.04). This relationship did not vary by menopausal status (P ≥ 0.15). Based on the 75th percentile of MVPA, women with high MVPA levels had significantly greater mean percent density compared to women with low MVPA levels (31% vs. 22%; P = 0.02). This relationship was significant for postmenopausal (26% vs. 13%; P = 0.04) but not premenopausal (31% vs. 25%; P = 0.27) women. Conclusion: In this cohort of high-risk women, high BMI was associated with lower MD that was suggestively stronger for premenopausal women. Although preliminary, these findings sugges","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74702790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA02
R. Pfeiffer
Statistical models that predict disease incidence, disease recurrence or mortality following disease onset have broad public health and clinical applications. Of great importance are models that predict absolute risk, namely the probability of a particular outcome, e.g. breast cancer, in the presence of competing causes of mortality. Although relative risks are useful for assessing the strength of risk factors, they are not nearly as useful as absolute risks for making clinical decisions or establishing policies for disease prevention. That is because such decisions or policies often weigh the favorable effects of an intervention on the disease of interest against the unfavorable effects that the intervention might have on other health outcomes. The common currency for such decisions is the (possibly weighted) absolute risk for each of the health outcomes in the presence and absence of intervention. First, I discuss various approaches to building absolute risk models from various data sources and illustrate them with absolute risk models for breast cancer and thyroid cancer. Before a risk prediction model can be recommended for clinical or public health applications, one needs to assess how good the predictions are. I will give an overview over various criteria for assessing the performance of a risk model. I assume that we have developed a risk model on training data and assess the performance of the model on independent test or validation data. This approach, termed external validation, provides a more rigorous assessment of the model than testing the model on the training data (internal validation); even though cross-validation techniques are available to reduce the over-optimism bias that can result from testing the model on the training data. I present general criteria for model assessment, such as calibration, predictive accuracy and classification accuracy, and discriminatory accuracy. Calibration measures how well the numbers of events predicted by a model agree with the observed events that arise in a cohort. Calibration is the most important general criterion, because if a model is not well calibrated, other criteria, such as discrimination, can be misleading. Discriminatory accuracy measures how well separated the distributions of risk are for cases and non-cases. Another approach is to tailor the criterion to the particular application. I will also present novel criteria for screening applications or high risk interventions. If losses can be specified in a well-defined decision problem, I will show how models can be assessed with respect to how much they reduce expected loss. Citation Format: Ruth Pfeiffer. A brief overview of building and validating absolute risk models. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA02.
{"title":"Abstract IA02: A brief overview of building and validating absolute risk models","authors":"R. Pfeiffer","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA02","url":null,"abstract":"Statistical models that predict disease incidence, disease recurrence or mortality following disease onset have broad public health and clinical applications. Of great importance are models that predict absolute risk, namely the probability of a particular outcome, e.g. breast cancer, in the presence of competing causes of mortality. Although relative risks are useful for assessing the strength of risk factors, they are not nearly as useful as absolute risks for making clinical decisions or establishing policies for disease prevention. That is because such decisions or policies often weigh the favorable effects of an intervention on the disease of interest against the unfavorable effects that the intervention might have on other health outcomes. The common currency for such decisions is the (possibly weighted) absolute risk for each of the health outcomes in the presence and absence of intervention. First, I discuss various approaches to building absolute risk models from various data sources and illustrate them with absolute risk models for breast cancer and thyroid cancer. Before a risk prediction model can be recommended for clinical or public health applications, one needs to assess how good the predictions are. I will give an overview over various criteria for assessing the performance of a risk model. I assume that we have developed a risk model on training data and assess the performance of the model on independent test or validation data. This approach, termed external validation, provides a more rigorous assessment of the model than testing the model on the training data (internal validation); even though cross-validation techniques are available to reduce the over-optimism bias that can result from testing the model on the training data. I present general criteria for model assessment, such as calibration, predictive accuracy and classification accuracy, and discriminatory accuracy. Calibration measures how well the numbers of events predicted by a model agree with the observed events that arise in a cohort. Calibration is the most important general criterion, because if a model is not well calibrated, other criteria, such as discrimination, can be misleading. Discriminatory accuracy measures how well separated the distributions of risk are for cases and non-cases. Another approach is to tailor the criterion to the particular application. I will also present novel criteria for screening applications or high risk interventions. If losses can be specified in a well-defined decision problem, I will show how models can be assessed with respect to how much they reduce expected loss. Citation Format: Ruth Pfeiffer. A brief overview of building and validating absolute risk models. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA02.","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"158 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86049889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-B01
Shannon M. Lynch, E. Handorf, Elizabeth Blackman, L. Bealin, S. Daniel, V. Giri, E. Obeid, C. Ragin, M. Daly
Background: Health disparities play a major role in prostate cancer (PCa). African American (AA) compared to European American (EA) men are twice as likely to die of and be diagnosed with PCa. Multilevel factors from societal/neighborhood exposures down to genetics likely contribute to racial disparities, but few PCa risk prediction models include multilevel factors and consider race/ethnic differences. Objective: We sought to: 1) develop a multilevel risk prediction model for time to PCa diagnosis, that includes neighborhood variables, individual-level socioeconomic and clinical factors (education, race, digital rectal exam or DRE), and biologic variables (prostate specific antigen or PSA level, and percent West African genetic ancestry) in men at high risk for prostate cancer (defined as AA men and/or men with a PCa family history); 2) compare our multilevel model to a more standard prediction model that includes only age, race, PSA, and DRE (abnormal/normal). Methods: A total of 443 high risk, cancer-free men between 35 and 69 years of age with complete socioeconomic, racial, and genetic ancestry data were identified from the Prostate Risk Assessment Program (PRAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Their data were geocoded and linked to 17 neighborhood variables at the census tract level (from the Year 2000 U.S. Census) that were previously associated with advanced PCa in EA men in a novel neighborhood-wide association study(NWAS) our study team developed. These variables generally represent neighborhood transportation, poverty, income, social support, immigration, renting/owning a house, and employment. Men were followed from time of program (PRAP) entry to PCa diagnosis or censoring, with annual follow-up visits that included PSA and DRE screening. Men with elevated PSA or other indications for PCa were referred to Urology for evaluation and potential biopsy according to PRAP protocols. Univariate analyses of neighborhood variables, and the interaction of each variable with PSA and race, were evaluated in Cox regression models, using robust standard errors to adjust for clustering by census tract, in order to inform the final multivariate, multilevel model. Harrell9s C Index (C Statistic) was used to compare the multilevel risk prediction model to a standard prediction model. Results: With a median follow-up time of 71 months, PCa diagnosis occurred in 69 participants. The final multilevel risk prediction model included 3 neighborhood variables related to transportation, social support, and poverty, along with education, age, race, baseline PSA, baseline DRE, and PCa family history. Significant interactions between the top hit from the NWAS and PSA were noted in the full study population (neighborhood mode of transportation to work X PSA, p-value Conclusion: This study is the first to investigate the role of neighborhood in PCa risk prediction. While risk prediction models show little change, significant neighborhood effects in multilevel models w
背景:健康差异在前列腺癌(PCa)中起着重要作用。非裔美国人(AA)与欧洲裔美国人(EA)相比,死于前列腺癌和被诊断为前列腺癌的可能性是欧洲裔美国人的两倍。从社会/社区暴露到遗传的多水平因素可能导致种族差异,但很少有PCa风险预测模型包括多水平因素并考虑种族/民族差异。目的:我们试图:1)建立一个前列腺癌诊断时间的多水平风险预测模型,该模型包括邻居变量,个人水平的社会经济和临床因素(教育,种族,直肠指检或DRE),以及前列腺癌高危男性(定义为AA男性和/或有前列腺癌家族史的男性)的生物学变量(前列腺特异性抗原或PSA水平,西非遗传血统百分比);2)将我们的多层模型与仅包括年龄、种族、PSA和DRE(异常/正常)的更标准的预测模型进行比较。方法:从Fox Chase癌症中心的前列腺风险评估项目(PRAP)中确定了443名年龄在35至69岁之间的无癌高风险男性,他们具有完整的社会经济、种族和遗传血统数据。他们的数据是地理编码的,并与人口普查区水平的17个社区变量(来自2000年美国人口普查)相关联,这些变量先前在我们的研究小组开发的一项新的社区范围关联研究(NWAS)中与EA男性的高级PCa相关。这些变量通常代表社区交通、贫困、收入、社会支持、移民、租房/买房和就业。男性从项目开始(PRAP)到PCa诊断或检查,每年随访包括PSA和DRE筛查。PSA升高或其他前列腺癌指征的男性被转介到泌尿科进行评估,并根据PRAP方案进行活检。邻域变量的单变量分析,以及每个变量与PSA和种族的相互作用,在Cox回归模型中进行评估,使用稳健的标准误差来调整人口普查区的聚类,以便为最终的多变量多层次模型提供信息。采用Harrell9s C指数(C统计量)对多层风险预测模型与标准预测模型进行比较。结果:中位随访时间为71个月,69名参与者被诊断为前列腺癌。最终的多层次风险预测模型包括与交通、社会支持和贫困相关的3个邻里变量,以及教育、年龄、种族、基线PSA、基线DRE和PCa家族史。在整个研究人群中,NWAS和PSA之间存在显著的相互作用(社区上班交通方式X PSA, p值)。结论:本研究首次探讨了社区在PCa风险预测中的作用。虽然风险预测模型显示变化不大,但多层次模型中的显著邻里效应值得进一步研究,并可能为未来的健康差异研究提供信息。引文格式:Shannon M. Lynch, Elizabeth Handorf, Elizabeth Blackman, Lisa Bealin, Shiju Daniel, Veda N. Giri, Elias Obeid, Camille Ragin, Mary B. Daly。在参加前列腺癌早期检测项目的高风险男性中测试多层次风险预测模型。[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;Cancer epidemiology Biomarkers pre2017;26(5增刊):摘要nr B01。
{"title":"Abstract B01: Testing a multilevel risk prediction model in high risk men enrolled in a prostate cancer early detection program","authors":"Shannon M. Lynch, E. Handorf, Elizabeth Blackman, L. Bealin, S. Daniel, V. Giri, E. Obeid, C. Ragin, M. Daly","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-B01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-B01","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Health disparities play a major role in prostate cancer (PCa). African American (AA) compared to European American (EA) men are twice as likely to die of and be diagnosed with PCa. Multilevel factors from societal/neighborhood exposures down to genetics likely contribute to racial disparities, but few PCa risk prediction models include multilevel factors and consider race/ethnic differences. Objective: We sought to: 1) develop a multilevel risk prediction model for time to PCa diagnosis, that includes neighborhood variables, individual-level socioeconomic and clinical factors (education, race, digital rectal exam or DRE), and biologic variables (prostate specific antigen or PSA level, and percent West African genetic ancestry) in men at high risk for prostate cancer (defined as AA men and/or men with a PCa family history); 2) compare our multilevel model to a more standard prediction model that includes only age, race, PSA, and DRE (abnormal/normal). Methods: A total of 443 high risk, cancer-free men between 35 and 69 years of age with complete socioeconomic, racial, and genetic ancestry data were identified from the Prostate Risk Assessment Program (PRAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center. Their data were geocoded and linked to 17 neighborhood variables at the census tract level (from the Year 2000 U.S. Census) that were previously associated with advanced PCa in EA men in a novel neighborhood-wide association study(NWAS) our study team developed. These variables generally represent neighborhood transportation, poverty, income, social support, immigration, renting/owning a house, and employment. Men were followed from time of program (PRAP) entry to PCa diagnosis or censoring, with annual follow-up visits that included PSA and DRE screening. Men with elevated PSA or other indications for PCa were referred to Urology for evaluation and potential biopsy according to PRAP protocols. Univariate analyses of neighborhood variables, and the interaction of each variable with PSA and race, were evaluated in Cox regression models, using robust standard errors to adjust for clustering by census tract, in order to inform the final multivariate, multilevel model. Harrell9s C Index (C Statistic) was used to compare the multilevel risk prediction model to a standard prediction model. Results: With a median follow-up time of 71 months, PCa diagnosis occurred in 69 participants. The final multilevel risk prediction model included 3 neighborhood variables related to transportation, social support, and poverty, along with education, age, race, baseline PSA, baseline DRE, and PCa family history. Significant interactions between the top hit from the NWAS and PSA were noted in the full study population (neighborhood mode of transportation to work X PSA, p-value Conclusion: This study is the first to investigate the role of neighborhood in PCa risk prediction. While risk prediction models show little change, significant neighborhood effects in multilevel models w","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84019016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA21
G. Colditz
Not very long ago scientific publication was viewed as the primary dissemination goal of scientific discovery. This viewpoint, however, has evolved substantially over the past 10 - 20 years. While scientific discovery and publication remain key to dissemination of findings, it is now often viewed as a single stage in the spectrum from discovery to the application of research results. The view of effective dissemination must now also include the practical world of policy makers, clinicians, health care organizations, and the public – groups that need good data and good tools to make informed decisions that drive individual, national, and global health. The development of health risk assessment and prevention tools can play a key role in doing this. And such development moves through three general translation stages – with each subsequent stage marked by greater difficulty to achieve. 1) Creation of accurate risk prediction calculation(s) from current evidence base. 2) Development of a practical, usable tool that incorporates the calculation(s) and provides actionable messages – for clinical, public policy, or public use. 3) Integration of risk prediction tools with the social, structural, and financial support for translating recommended action messages into actual action – whether we9re talking about doctors counseling patients, government representatives making health policy, or the public working to improve their own health. This process by necessity requires a multi-disciplinary approach – drawing on expertise from epidemiology, biostatistics, communication theory, coding, and design – among others. With the addition of precision medicine and big data to long-established data analysis techniques, the field of risk prediction is set to expand in coming years. Along with that expansion, it is important to assure that our efforts are valid, useful, reliable, and applicable. Citation Format: Graham A. Colditz. Translating evidence to action: Yourdiseaserisk.wustl.edu. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA21.
不久以前,科学出版物被视为科学发现的主要传播目标。然而,这种观点在过去的10 - 20年里发生了很大的变化。虽然科学发现和发表仍然是传播发现的关键,但现在往往被视为从发现到研究成果应用这一过程中的一个阶段。有效传播的观点现在还必须包括决策者、临床医生、卫生保健组织和公众的实际世界,这些群体需要良好的数据和良好的工具来做出明智的决定,推动个人、国家和全球健康。制定健康风险评估和预防工具可在这方面发挥关键作用。这种发展经历了三个一般的翻译阶段,每个阶段的难度都更大。1)根据现有证据基础建立准确的风险预测计算。2)开发一种实用的、可用的工具,该工具包含计算并提供可操作的信息-供临床、公共政策或公众使用。3)将风险预测工具与社会、结构和财政支持相结合,将建议的行动信息转化为实际行动——无论是医生为患者提供咨询,政府代表制定卫生政策,还是公众努力改善自己的健康。这一过程必然需要一种多学科的方法——利用流行病学、生物统计学、传播理论、编码和设计等方面的专业知识。随着精准医疗和大数据的加入,长期建立的数据分析技术,风险预测领域将在未来几年扩大。随着这种扩大,重要的是要确保我们的努力是有效的、有用的、可靠的和适用的。引文格式:Graham A. Colditz。将证据转化为行动:Yourdiseaserisk.wustl.edu。[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;Cancer epidemiology Biomarkers pre2017;26(5增刊):摘要/ Abstract
{"title":"Abstract IA21: Translating evidence to action: Yourdiseaserisk.wustl.edu","authors":"G. Colditz","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA21","url":null,"abstract":"Not very long ago scientific publication was viewed as the primary dissemination goal of scientific discovery. This viewpoint, however, has evolved substantially over the past 10 - 20 years. While scientific discovery and publication remain key to dissemination of findings, it is now often viewed as a single stage in the spectrum from discovery to the application of research results. The view of effective dissemination must now also include the practical world of policy makers, clinicians, health care organizations, and the public – groups that need good data and good tools to make informed decisions that drive individual, national, and global health. The development of health risk assessment and prevention tools can play a key role in doing this. And such development moves through three general translation stages – with each subsequent stage marked by greater difficulty to achieve. 1) Creation of accurate risk prediction calculation(s) from current evidence base. 2) Development of a practical, usable tool that incorporates the calculation(s) and provides actionable messages – for clinical, public policy, or public use. 3) Integration of risk prediction tools with the social, structural, and financial support for translating recommended action messages into actual action – whether we9re talking about doctors counseling patients, government representatives making health policy, or the public working to improve their own health. This process by necessity requires a multi-disciplinary approach – drawing on expertise from epidemiology, biostatistics, communication theory, coding, and design – among others. With the addition of precision medicine and big data to long-established data analysis techniques, the field of risk prediction is set to expand in coming years. Along with that expansion, it is important to assure that our efforts are valid, useful, reliable, and applicable. Citation Format: Graham A. Colditz. Translating evidence to action: Yourdiseaserisk.wustl.edu. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA21.","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79365593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A15
J. Ruterbusch, M. Cote, J. Boerner, E. Abdulfatah, B. Alosh, V. Pardeshi, M. F. Daaboul, Woodlyne Roquiz, R. Ali-Fehmi, S. Bandyopadhyay
Introduction: Most clinical models to estimate risk of invasive breast cancer include history of benign breast disease (BBD) as a covariate, as these women represent a higher risk group compared to the general population. A better understanding of the association between BBD and breast cancer is necessary to improve the utility of these risk models, particularly with respect to tumor subtype. This may be especially important for African American women who are more likely to present with aggressive cancers compared to white women. Here we present tumor subtypes from a higher risk cohort of African American women with a history of BBD. Methods: Benign breast biopsies from 3,865 African American women with BBD diagnosed from 1997-2010 were examined for 14 benign features, and followed for subsequent breast cancers in metropolitan Detroit, Michigan using medical records and data from the Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program. Immunohistochemistry analysis was performed for the following 6 markers: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), Ki-67, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokeratin 5/6 (CK 5/6) in order to categorize the subsequent breast cancers by subtype. Briefly, ER and PR were utilized to classify tumors as luminal or non-luminal, and then further classification was made based HER2. Luminal tumors were also classified by Ki-67 expression, and triple negative tumors (ER/PR/HER2 negative) were further classified based on expression of either CK5/6 or EGFR, resulting in 6 categories. Results: 210 women (5.4% of the total cohort) with a subsequent breast cancer were identified over a median follow-up time of 12.3 years (range: 0.6 - 18.0). Analysis of all 6 markers is complete for half of the tumors (104). The majority of the subsequent cancers were invasive (n=72, 69.2%). Most of the invasive tumors were luminal B, HER2- (37.5%), followed by luminal A (31.9%), triple negative (19.4%), non-luminal, HER2+ (6.9%) and luminal B, HER2+ (4.2%). Of the 14 triple negative cancers (19.4%), 8 were negative for CK5/6 and EGFR (5 negative phenotype, 57.1%) and 6 were core basal (42.9%). Among the 32 in situ tumors, the majority were luminal A (n=26, 81.3%), followed by luminal B, HER2- (n=5, 15.6%) and there was a single tumor classified as 5 negative. Compared to population-based SEER data from 5,268 African American women with invasive breast cancer and available data on 3 markers (ER, PR, and HER2) diagnosed in 2010, our cohort is similar with respect to tumor subtype. Conclusions: The women with a previous benign breast biopsy in our cohort who develop a subsequent breast cancer have subtypes that are similar to the general African American population in the United States. Thus, our BBD cohort represents the full spectrum of invasive breast cancers with respect to subtype, including triple negative tumors. Citation Format: Julie J. Ruterbusch, Michele
{"title":"Abstract A15: Breast cancer subtype subsequent to a benign breast biopsy among African American women","authors":"J. Ruterbusch, M. Cote, J. Boerner, E. Abdulfatah, B. Alosh, V. Pardeshi, M. F. Daaboul, Woodlyne Roquiz, R. Ali-Fehmi, S. Bandyopadhyay","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A15","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Most clinical models to estimate risk of invasive breast cancer include history of benign breast disease (BBD) as a covariate, as these women represent a higher risk group compared to the general population. A better understanding of the association between BBD and breast cancer is necessary to improve the utility of these risk models, particularly with respect to tumor subtype. This may be especially important for African American women who are more likely to present with aggressive cancers compared to white women. Here we present tumor subtypes from a higher risk cohort of African American women with a history of BBD. Methods: Benign breast biopsies from 3,865 African American women with BBD diagnosed from 1997-2010 were examined for 14 benign features, and followed for subsequent breast cancers in metropolitan Detroit, Michigan using medical records and data from the Detroit Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program. Immunohistochemistry analysis was performed for the following 6 markers: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), Ki-67, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokeratin 5/6 (CK 5/6) in order to categorize the subsequent breast cancers by subtype. Briefly, ER and PR were utilized to classify tumors as luminal or non-luminal, and then further classification was made based HER2. Luminal tumors were also classified by Ki-67 expression, and triple negative tumors (ER/PR/HER2 negative) were further classified based on expression of either CK5/6 or EGFR, resulting in 6 categories. Results: 210 women (5.4% of the total cohort) with a subsequent breast cancer were identified over a median follow-up time of 12.3 years (range: 0.6 - 18.0). Analysis of all 6 markers is complete for half of the tumors (104). The majority of the subsequent cancers were invasive (n=72, 69.2%). Most of the invasive tumors were luminal B, HER2- (37.5%), followed by luminal A (31.9%), triple negative (19.4%), non-luminal, HER2+ (6.9%) and luminal B, HER2+ (4.2%). Of the 14 triple negative cancers (19.4%), 8 were negative for CK5/6 and EGFR (5 negative phenotype, 57.1%) and 6 were core basal (42.9%). Among the 32 in situ tumors, the majority were luminal A (n=26, 81.3%), followed by luminal B, HER2- (n=5, 15.6%) and there was a single tumor classified as 5 negative. Compared to population-based SEER data from 5,268 African American women with invasive breast cancer and available data on 3 markers (ER, PR, and HER2) diagnosed in 2010, our cohort is similar with respect to tumor subtype. Conclusions: The women with a previous benign breast biopsy in our cohort who develop a subsequent breast cancer have subtypes that are similar to the general African American population in the United States. Thus, our BBD cohort represents the full spectrum of invasive breast cancers with respect to subtype, including triple negative tumors. Citation Format: Julie J. Ruterbusch, Michele ","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88483907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A28
M. Demarco, Noorie Hyun, H. Katki, B. Befano, L. Cheung, Tina Raine-Bennett, B. Fetterman, T. Lorey, N. Poitras, J. Gage, P. Castle, N. Wentzensen, M. Schiffman
Background: The natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) and the steps leading to cervical cancer are well-known; the steps include infection with one of the 13 carcinogenic HPV genotypes, viral persistence, progression to precancer, and invasion. Cervical screening programs target treatable cervical precancer to prevent cancer mortality and morbidity. HPV infections are very common and only those causing precancer pose a risk of cancer. In addition to HPV genotype, multiple established co-factors can be combined to predict with unparalleled accuracy and precision the broad range of risks for the critical transition from common HPV infection to uncommon cervical precancer. Thus, there are three types of factors predicting risk of precancer: viral (e.g., HPV genotype and viral load), host (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) and behavioral (e.g., oral contraceptive use, smoking, BMI, co-infection with other sexually transmitted agents). We are building a risk prediction model for clinical use that reflects the determinants of HPV natural history. The absolute-risk based model will consider the three possible HPV outcomes: HPV progression, else HPV “clearance” (immune suppression) signifying low risk of subsequent precancer from that infection, else persistence of HPV infection without either progression or clearance (i.e., still unresolved outcome). To estimate these competing risks for all the factors, cofactors and their combinations requires very large cohorts of HPV-infected women. Methods: Our analysis makes use of data from a uniquely large cohort study of HPV-infected women, specifically, the 35,000 HPV-positive women, 30 years or older, from the NCI-Kaiser Permanente Northern California Persistence and Progression cohort study. The median time of follow-up is 3 years (maximum >7 years). Risk predictors already recorded include: woman9s age, HPV infection status, HPV genotype, viral load, concurrent cervical cytology result, and the range of behavioral cofactors. We will present at the meeting the steps leading to the final model: 1) univariate, then multivariate, absolute risks of progression, clearance, or persistence for each HPV genotype; 2) the same risks accounting for time to event and loss-to-followup; and 3) the novel statistic mean risk stratification (MRS), which measures how well the model predicts the crucial dichotomous outcome (progression vs. not). MRS identifies which combination of variables, by virtue of frequency of positive results and strength of risk stratification, is most promising in deciding risk-based clinical management (i.e., who needs colposcopic biopsy due to high risk of precancer). We present the univariate absolute risks for HPV genotypes here, but will show the full multivariate proportional hazards and MRS analyses at the conference. Results: Risk of progression (29.4% for HPV16 to 7.2% for HPV68) varied inversely with risk of clearance (60.1% for HPV16 to 81.6% for HPV68), by HPV type. Relatively few (~10%)
背景:人类乳头瘤病毒(HPV)的自然历史和导致宫颈癌的步骤是众所周知的;步骤包括感染13种致癌HPV基因型之一,病毒持续存在,进展到癌前病变和侵袭。子宫颈筛查计划的目标是可治疗的宫颈癌前病变,以预防癌症的死亡率和发病率。HPV感染很常见,只有那些引起癌前病变的人才有患癌症的风险。除了HPV基因型外,多种已确定的辅助因素可以结合起来以无与伦比的准确性和精度预测从常见HPV感染到罕见宫颈癌前病变的关键转变的广泛风险。因此,有三种预测癌前风险的因素:病毒(例如,HPV基因型和病毒载量)、宿主(例如,年龄、种族/民族)和行为(例如,口服避孕药的使用、吸烟、体重指数、与其他性传播媒介的合并感染)。我们正在建立一个临床使用的风险预测模型,反映HPV自然史的决定因素。基于绝对风险的模型将考虑三种可能的HPV结果:HPV进展,否则HPV“清除”(免疫抑制)意味着该感染的后续癌前病变风险较低,否则HPV感染持续存在,既没有进展也没有清除(即仍未解决的结果)。为了估计所有因素、辅助因素及其组合的竞争风险,需要非常大的hpv感染妇女队列。方法:我们的分析利用了来自一项独特的大型hpv感染妇女队列研究的数据,特别是来自NCI-Kaiser Permanente北加州持续和进展队列研究的35000名30岁或以上的hpv阳性妇女。中位随访时间为3年,最长随访时间为7年。已经记录的风险预测因素包括:女性年龄、HPV感染状况、HPV基因型、病毒载量、并发宫颈细胞学结果以及行为辅助因素的范围。我们将在会议上介绍最终模型的步骤:1)单因素,然后是多因素,每个HPV基因型的进展,清除或持续的绝对风险;2)对事件发生时间和事后损失进行相同的风险核算;3)新的统计平均风险分层(MRS),它衡量模型预测关键的二分类结果(进展与不进展)的程度。MRS通过阳性结果的频率和风险分层的强度来确定哪些变量组合在决定基于风险的临床管理(即,由于癌前病变的高风险,谁需要阴道镜活检)方面最有希望。我们在这里展示了HPV基因型的单因素绝对风险,但将在会议上展示完整的多因素比例风险和MRS分析。结果:不同HPV类型的进展风险(HPV16为29.4%,HPV68为7.2%)与清除率(HPV16为60.1%,HPV68为81.6%)呈负相关。相对很少(约10%)的致癌性感染没有进展。在初步分析中,最重要的单变量辅助因素是病毒载量(主要是HPV16)、女性年龄和并发细胞学。没有特别重要的行为风险因素。清除时间和进展时间不因HPV类型而异,发生事件的中位时间为1.5-2年。结论:根据我们的初步结果,大多数HPV感染的命运是在首次检测后的几年内确定的,主要基于病毒的特征。MRS总结了预测模型的平均风险判别与试验前概率的比较,从而可以估计其预期收益。我们假设并将检验绝对风险的多变量计算和平均风险分层的使用是否可以改善hpv感染妇女的基于风险的临床管理。引文格式:Maria Demarco, Noorie Hyun, Hormuzd Katki, Brian Befano, Li b张,Tina R. Raine-Bennett, Barbara Fetterman, Thomas Lorey, Nancy Poitras, Julia C. Gage, Phillip E. Castle, Nicolas Wentzensen, Mark Schiffman。hpv感染妇女临床管理的风险模型。[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;Cancer epidemiology Biomarkers pre2017;26(5增刊):摘要nr A28。
{"title":"Abstract A28: Risk model for clinical management of HPV-infected women","authors":"M. Demarco, Noorie Hyun, H. Katki, B. Befano, L. Cheung, Tina Raine-Bennett, B. Fetterman, T. Lorey, N. Poitras, J. Gage, P. Castle, N. Wentzensen, M. Schiffman","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A28","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The natural history of human papillomavirus (HPV) and the steps leading to cervical cancer are well-known; the steps include infection with one of the 13 carcinogenic HPV genotypes, viral persistence, progression to precancer, and invasion. Cervical screening programs target treatable cervical precancer to prevent cancer mortality and morbidity. HPV infections are very common and only those causing precancer pose a risk of cancer. In addition to HPV genotype, multiple established co-factors can be combined to predict with unparalleled accuracy and precision the broad range of risks for the critical transition from common HPV infection to uncommon cervical precancer. Thus, there are three types of factors predicting risk of precancer: viral (e.g., HPV genotype and viral load), host (e.g., age, race/ethnicity) and behavioral (e.g., oral contraceptive use, smoking, BMI, co-infection with other sexually transmitted agents). We are building a risk prediction model for clinical use that reflects the determinants of HPV natural history. The absolute-risk based model will consider the three possible HPV outcomes: HPV progression, else HPV “clearance” (immune suppression) signifying low risk of subsequent precancer from that infection, else persistence of HPV infection without either progression or clearance (i.e., still unresolved outcome). To estimate these competing risks for all the factors, cofactors and their combinations requires very large cohorts of HPV-infected women. Methods: Our analysis makes use of data from a uniquely large cohort study of HPV-infected women, specifically, the 35,000 HPV-positive women, 30 years or older, from the NCI-Kaiser Permanente Northern California Persistence and Progression cohort study. The median time of follow-up is 3 years (maximum >7 years). Risk predictors already recorded include: woman9s age, HPV infection status, HPV genotype, viral load, concurrent cervical cytology result, and the range of behavioral cofactors. We will present at the meeting the steps leading to the final model: 1) univariate, then multivariate, absolute risks of progression, clearance, or persistence for each HPV genotype; 2) the same risks accounting for time to event and loss-to-followup; and 3) the novel statistic mean risk stratification (MRS), which measures how well the model predicts the crucial dichotomous outcome (progression vs. not). MRS identifies which combination of variables, by virtue of frequency of positive results and strength of risk stratification, is most promising in deciding risk-based clinical management (i.e., who needs colposcopic biopsy due to high risk of precancer). We present the univariate absolute risks for HPV genotypes here, but will show the full multivariate proportional hazards and MRS analyses at the conference. Results: Risk of progression (29.4% for HPV16 to 7.2% for HPV68) varied inversely with risk of clearance (60.1% for HPV16 to 81.6% for HPV68), by HPV type. Relatively few (~10%)","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80379792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A23
L. Salmena, L. Odén, S. Kim, M. Akbari, P. Sun, S. Narod, J. Kotsopoulos
Background: There is emerging evidence to suggest that progesterone-mediated upregulation of the receptor activator of nuclear factor κ β (RANK)/RANK ligand (RANKL) signaling pathway plays a critical role in mammary gland epithelial cell proliferation, mammary stem cell expansion and carcinogenesis. Of relevance for women at a high risk of developing breast cancer due to an inherited BRCA mutation, are recent findings showing that circulating levels of osteoprotegerin (OPG) (an endogenous decoy receptor for RANKL and thus inhibitor of RANK/RANKL-mediated signaling) are lower in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation compared to non-carriers. Whether low OPG concentrations contribute to the high breast cancer risk in this population is unknown. If so, a therapeutic intervention that mimics the action of OPG might be used for primary prevention. We evaluated the relationship between plasma OPG and breast cancer risk among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a prospective study. Methods: Baseline blood samples were available from 206 BRCA mutation carriers with no previous history of cancer. Plasma OPG concentrations were measured using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and categorized dichotomously as high vs. low based on the median of the entire cohort. The cumulative incidence of breast cancer by baseline plasma OPG concentration was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: Over a mean follow-up period of 6.5 years (range 0.1-18.8 years), 18 incident cases of primary invasive breast cancer were observed in the cohort. Women who developed breast cancer had significantly lower mean baseline OPG concentrations (90.59 pg/ml [range 4.2-205.7 pg/ml]) compared to the OPG concentrations of women who did not develop breast cancer ((117.9 pg/ml [7.4-547.7]) (P = 0.04). BRCA mutation carriers with low baseline OPG concentrations ( Conclusions: Our preliminary data suggest that low OPG concentrations are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. These data support the potential for targeting of the RANKL pathway as a plausible cancer prevention strategy among women with germline BRCA mutations. Additional analyses with a larger sample size are underway and may help inform strategies of personalized prevention. These findings will not only further our understanding of the progesterone/OPG/RANKL pathway in breast cancer development, but will improve our identification of high-risk populations that can be targeted by prevention options that are currently available (i.e., denosumab) to simultaneously prevent breast cancer development and maintain bone health (particularly after salpingo-oophorectomy). Citation Format: Leonardo Salmena, Lovisa Oden, Shana Kim, Mohammad Akbari, Ping Sun, Steven Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos. Plasma osteoprotegerin and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer
背景:越来越多的证据表明,孕激素介导的核因子κ β受体激活因子(RANK)/RANK配体(RANKL)信号通路的上调在乳腺上皮细胞增殖、乳腺干细胞扩增和癌变过程中起着关键作用。最近的研究结果显示,与非携带者相比,携带BRCA1或BRCA2突变的女性的循环骨保护素(OPG) (RANKL的内源性诱变受体,因此是RANK/RANKL介导信号的抑制剂)水平较低,这与遗传性BRCA突变导致乳腺癌高风险的女性相关。在这一人群中,低OPG浓度是否会导致高乳腺癌风险尚不清楚。如果是这样,一种模仿OPG作用的治疗干预可能用于一级预防。我们在一项前瞻性研究中评估了BRCA1或BRCA2突变女性血浆OPG与乳腺癌风险之间的关系。方法:对206例无癌症病史的BRCA突变携带者进行基线血液采集。使用商用酶联免疫吸附试验(ELISA)测量血浆OPG浓度,并根据整个队列的中位数分为高和低两类。通过基线血浆OPG浓度,使用Kaplan-Meier生存分析估计乳腺癌的累积发病率。结果:在平均6.5年的随访期间(0.1-18.8年),该队列中观察到18例原发性浸润性乳腺癌。与未患乳腺癌的女性相比,患乳腺癌的女性的OPG平均基线浓度(90.59 pg/ml[范围4.2-205.7 pg/ml])显著降低(117.9 pg/ml [7.4-547.7]) (P = 0.04)。结论:我们的初步数据表明,低OPG浓度与BRCA1和BRCA2突变携带者患乳腺癌的风险增加有关。这些数据支持了靶向RANKL通路作为一种可行的女性种系BRCA突变癌症预防策略的潜力。正在进行更大样本量的其他分析,可能有助于制定个性化预防策略。这些发现不仅将进一步加深我们对孕酮/OPG/RANKL通路在乳腺癌发展中的理解,而且将提高我们对高危人群的识别,这些高危人群可以通过现有的预防方案(即denosumab)来同时预防乳腺癌的发展和维持骨骼健康(特别是在输卵管卵巢切除术后)。引文格式:Leonardo Salmena, Lovisa Oden, Shana Kim, Mohammad Akbari, Ping Sun, Steven Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos。血浆骨保护素与BRCA1和BRCA2突变携带者的乳腺癌风险[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;Cancer epidemiology Biomarkers pre2017;26(5增刊):摘要nr A23。
{"title":"Abstract A23: Plasma osteoprotegerin and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers","authors":"L. Salmena, L. Odén, S. Kim, M. Akbari, P. Sun, S. Narod, J. Kotsopoulos","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A23","url":null,"abstract":"Background: There is emerging evidence to suggest that progesterone-mediated upregulation of the receptor activator of nuclear factor κ β (RANK)/RANK ligand (RANKL) signaling pathway plays a critical role in mammary gland epithelial cell proliferation, mammary stem cell expansion and carcinogenesis. Of relevance for women at a high risk of developing breast cancer due to an inherited BRCA mutation, are recent findings showing that circulating levels of osteoprotegerin (OPG) (an endogenous decoy receptor for RANKL and thus inhibitor of RANK/RANKL-mediated signaling) are lower in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation compared to non-carriers. Whether low OPG concentrations contribute to the high breast cancer risk in this population is unknown. If so, a therapeutic intervention that mimics the action of OPG might be used for primary prevention. We evaluated the relationship between plasma OPG and breast cancer risk among women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in a prospective study. Methods: Baseline blood samples were available from 206 BRCA mutation carriers with no previous history of cancer. Plasma OPG concentrations were measured using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and categorized dichotomously as high vs. low based on the median of the entire cohort. The cumulative incidence of breast cancer by baseline plasma OPG concentration was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: Over a mean follow-up period of 6.5 years (range 0.1-18.8 years), 18 incident cases of primary invasive breast cancer were observed in the cohort. Women who developed breast cancer had significantly lower mean baseline OPG concentrations (90.59 pg/ml [range 4.2-205.7 pg/ml]) compared to the OPG concentrations of women who did not develop breast cancer ((117.9 pg/ml [7.4-547.7]) (P = 0.04). BRCA mutation carriers with low baseline OPG concentrations ( Conclusions: Our preliminary data suggest that low OPG concentrations are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. These data support the potential for targeting of the RANKL pathway as a plausible cancer prevention strategy among women with germline BRCA mutations. Additional analyses with a larger sample size are underway and may help inform strategies of personalized prevention. These findings will not only further our understanding of the progesterone/OPG/RANKL pathway in breast cancer development, but will improve our identification of high-risk populations that can be targeted by prevention options that are currently available (i.e., denosumab) to simultaneously prevent breast cancer development and maintain bone health (particularly after salpingo-oophorectomy). Citation Format: Leonardo Salmena, Lovisa Oden, Shana Kim, Mohammad Akbari, Ping Sun, Steven Narod, Joanne Kotsopoulos. Plasma osteoprotegerin and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74159490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A27
C. Bodelón, H. Risch, F. Modugno, P. Webb, C. Pearce, M. Pike, N. Wentzensen
Background: Parity and use of oral contraceptive (OC) are associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer. However, it is not clear whether these exposures have similar risk effects during different periods of life. In a large consortial analysis, we seek to evaluate the risk reductions associated with pregnancy and with OC use in different periods during the lifetime of a woman. Methods: We combined data from 17 population-based case-control studies of ovarian cancer that are part of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between age of pregnancies and duration of OC use were estimated in individual studies using logistic regression and combined using random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were adjusted for age, duration of OC use, number of pregnancies, and race (Caucasian, Black, Asian and other). Studies that matched on ethnicity were additionally adjusted for Hispanic ethnicity (yes/no). All tests were two-sided and P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The analysis included 15,033 ovarian cancer cases and 25,312 controls. The median age for cases was 57 (interquantile range: 50-65) and 56 for controls (interquantile range: 48-64). Approximately 83.4% of cases and 88.5% of controls reported at least one pregnancy and 55.4% of cases and 61.7% of controls reported OCs use for at least one month. On average, each pregnancy was associated with a 17% reduced risk of ovarian cancer (OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.8-0.85) while each year of OC use was associated with a 6% reduced risk (OR=0.94, CI 0.92-0.95). Among women who reported having at least one pregnancy, older age at last pregnancy was associated with lower risk of ovarian cancer (P Conclusions: In summary, older age at last pregnancy was significantly associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer. There was a suggestion that older age at last used of OCs was associated with lower risk of ovarian cancer. These findings suggest that use of OCs to later ages in life can reduce ovarian cancer risk. A joint evaluation of life periods with pregnancies and OC use and ovarian cancer risk is under way. Citation Format: Clara Bodelon, Harvey Risch, Francesmary Modugno, Penelope Webb, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Malcolm Pike, Nicolas Wentzensen. Timing of pregnancies and oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr A27.
{"title":"Abstract A27: Timing of pregnancies and oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer","authors":"C. Bodelón, H. Risch, F. Modugno, P. Webb, C. Pearce, M. Pike, N. Wentzensen","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-A27","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Parity and use of oral contraceptive (OC) are associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer. However, it is not clear whether these exposures have similar risk effects during different periods of life. In a large consortial analysis, we seek to evaluate the risk reductions associated with pregnancy and with OC use in different periods during the lifetime of a woman. Methods: We combined data from 17 population-based case-control studies of ovarian cancer that are part of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations between age of pregnancies and duration of OC use were estimated in individual studies using logistic regression and combined using random effects meta-analysis. Analyses were adjusted for age, duration of OC use, number of pregnancies, and race (Caucasian, Black, Asian and other). Studies that matched on ethnicity were additionally adjusted for Hispanic ethnicity (yes/no). All tests were two-sided and P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The analysis included 15,033 ovarian cancer cases and 25,312 controls. The median age for cases was 57 (interquantile range: 50-65) and 56 for controls (interquantile range: 48-64). Approximately 83.4% of cases and 88.5% of controls reported at least one pregnancy and 55.4% of cases and 61.7% of controls reported OCs use for at least one month. On average, each pregnancy was associated with a 17% reduced risk of ovarian cancer (OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.8-0.85) while each year of OC use was associated with a 6% reduced risk (OR=0.94, CI 0.92-0.95). Among women who reported having at least one pregnancy, older age at last pregnancy was associated with lower risk of ovarian cancer (P Conclusions: In summary, older age at last pregnancy was significantly associated with reduced risk of ovarian cancer. There was a suggestion that older age at last used of OCs was associated with lower risk of ovarian cancer. These findings suggest that use of OCs to later ages in life can reduce ovarian cancer risk. A joint evaluation of life periods with pregnancies and OC use and ovarian cancer risk is under way. Citation Format: Clara Bodelon, Harvey Risch, Francesmary Modugno, Penelope Webb, Celeste Leigh Pearce, Malcolm Pike, Nicolas Wentzensen. Timing of pregnancies and oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr A27.","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76256013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA04
B. Rosner
Purpose: To validate a simplified breast cancer incidence model using baseline risk factors in an independent dataset Methods: We restricted the study population to comparable age ranges at baseline (age 47-79) (Nurses9 Health Study (NHS), 1994, n=64,627; California Teachers9 Study (CTS), 1995, n=31,386) We fit simplified Rosner-Colditz (RC) log incidence models using baseline risk factors and estimated both a 14-year risk model (1994-2008, 3597 cases) and a 4-year risk model (1994-1998, 1616 cases) based on NHS data. Both the 14-year and 4-year risk models were compared with the Gail model over the same time periods in the CTS population (14-year model, 1995-2009, 1786 cases; 4-year risk model, 1995-1999, 543 cases). We assessed performance using measures of discrimination based on AUC and calibration based on Poisson regression. Correlated AUC methods (Rosner and Glynn, 2009) were used to compare AUC9s of competing models. Calibration was assessed by using relative risks from the RC and Gail models and absolute incidence rates from SEER. Results: Variables considered in the RC models were age; age at menopause (by type of menopause), menopausal status, age at 1 st birth age at menarche, nulliparity, birth index, benign breast disease, duration of HRT use among current users by type of HRT, weight at age 18, change in weight from age 18 to baseline, separately by menopausal status and HRT use, height, alcohol consumption and family Hx of breast cancer. Age-adjusted AUC estimates in the NHS population were: (14-year risk model, RC model: 0.606 ± 0.005, Gail model: 0.563 ± 0.005, p diff diff Age-adjusted AUC estimates in the validation (CTS) population were: (14-year risk model, RC model: 0.580 ± 0.007, Gail model: 0.549 ± 0.007, p diff diff =0.025). Calibration of the 14-year risk model indicated an estimated E/O ratio of 1.10 (95% CI = 1.05, 1.15) for RC; 1.08 (95% CI = 1.05-1.13) for Gail. Calibration of the 4-year risk model indicated an estimated E/O ratio of 1.16 (95% CI = 1.07-1.26) for RC; 1.15 (95% CI = 1.07-1.25) for Gail. Calibration results were similar using Poisson regression. Conclusion: The simplified RC model based on baseline risk factors is practical to use in a clinical setting and has a significantly higher AUC than the Gail model when validated in an external sample. AUC is better for short-term (4-year) vs. long-term risk prediction. Calibration is slightly off using both models and indicates that expected risks are slightly higher than observed risks for both short-term and long-term models. Citation Format: Bernard A. Rosner. Validation of a simplified Rosner-Colditz breast cancer incidence model in the California Teachers9 Study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA04.
目的:在独立数据集中验证使用基线危险因素的简化乳腺癌发病率模型方法:我们将研究人群限制在基线时可比较的年龄范围(47-79岁)(Nurses9健康研究(NHS), 1994, n=64,627;我们使用基线风险因素拟合简化的Rosner-Colditz (RC)对数发病率模型,并基于NHS数据估计14年风险模型(1994-2008年,3597例)和4年风险模型(1994-1998年,1616例)。将14年和4年风险模型与Gail模型在同一时期的CTS人群中进行比较(14年模型,1995-2009年,1786例;4年风险模型,1995-1999,543例)。我们使用基于AUC的判别方法和基于泊松回归的校准方法来评估性能。使用相关AUC方法(Rosner and Glynn, 2009)比较竞争模型的AUC。通过使用RC和Gail模型的相对风险以及SEER的绝对发病率来评估校准。结果:RC模型中考虑的变量有年龄;绝经年龄(按绝经类型)、绝经状态、初潮时的第1个出生年龄、无产、出生指数、良性乳腺疾病、当前HRT使用者按HRT类型使用HRT的持续时间、18岁时的体重、从18岁到基线的体重变化,分别按绝经状态和HRT使用、身高、饮酒量和乳腺癌的家族Hx。NHS人群的年龄调整AUC估计值为:(14年风险模型,RC模型:0.606±0.005,Gail模型:0.563±0.005,p diff diff =0.025)验证(CTS)人群的年龄调整AUC估计值为:(14年风险模型,RC模型:0.580±0.007,Gail模型:0.549±0.007,p diff diff =0.025)。校正14年风险模型表明,RC的估计E/O比为1.10 (95% CI = 1.05, 1.15);Gail为1.08 (95% CI = 1.05-1.13)。校正4年风险模型表明,RC的估计E/O比率为1.16 (95% CI = 1.07-1.26);Gail为1.15 (95% CI = 1.07-1.25)。用泊松回归校正结果相似。结论:基于基线危险因素的简化RC模型在临床环境中是实用的,并且在外部样本中验证时,其AUC明显高于Gail模型。AUC对短期(4年)风险预测优于长期风险预测。两种模型的校准都略有偏差,表明短期和长期模型的预期风险略高于观察到的风险。引用格式:Bernard A. Rosner。简化Rosner-Colditz乳腺癌发病率模型在加州教师研究中的验证[摘要]。摘自:AACR特别会议论文集:改进癌症风险预测以预防和早期发现;2016年11月16日至19日;费城(PA): AACR;Cancer epidemiology Biomarkers pre2017;26(5增刊):摘要nr IA04。
{"title":"Abstract IA04: Validation of a simplified Rosner-Colditz breast cancer incidence model in the California Teachers' Study","authors":"B. Rosner","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA04","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To validate a simplified breast cancer incidence model using baseline risk factors in an independent dataset Methods: We restricted the study population to comparable age ranges at baseline (age 47-79) (Nurses9 Health Study (NHS), 1994, n=64,627; California Teachers9 Study (CTS), 1995, n=31,386) We fit simplified Rosner-Colditz (RC) log incidence models using baseline risk factors and estimated both a 14-year risk model (1994-2008, 3597 cases) and a 4-year risk model (1994-1998, 1616 cases) based on NHS data. Both the 14-year and 4-year risk models were compared with the Gail model over the same time periods in the CTS population (14-year model, 1995-2009, 1786 cases; 4-year risk model, 1995-1999, 543 cases). We assessed performance using measures of discrimination based on AUC and calibration based on Poisson regression. Correlated AUC methods (Rosner and Glynn, 2009) were used to compare AUC9s of competing models. Calibration was assessed by using relative risks from the RC and Gail models and absolute incidence rates from SEER. Results: Variables considered in the RC models were age; age at menopause (by type of menopause), menopausal status, age at 1 st birth age at menarche, nulliparity, birth index, benign breast disease, duration of HRT use among current users by type of HRT, weight at age 18, change in weight from age 18 to baseline, separately by menopausal status and HRT use, height, alcohol consumption and family Hx of breast cancer. Age-adjusted AUC estimates in the NHS population were: (14-year risk model, RC model: 0.606 ± 0.005, Gail model: 0.563 ± 0.005, p diff diff Age-adjusted AUC estimates in the validation (CTS) population were: (14-year risk model, RC model: 0.580 ± 0.007, Gail model: 0.549 ± 0.007, p diff diff =0.025). Calibration of the 14-year risk model indicated an estimated E/O ratio of 1.10 (95% CI = 1.05, 1.15) for RC; 1.08 (95% CI = 1.05-1.13) for Gail. Calibration of the 4-year risk model indicated an estimated E/O ratio of 1.16 (95% CI = 1.07-1.26) for RC; 1.15 (95% CI = 1.07-1.25) for Gail. Calibration results were similar using Poisson regression. Conclusion: The simplified RC model based on baseline risk factors is practical to use in a clinical setting and has a significantly higher AUC than the Gail model when validated in an external sample. AUC is better for short-term (4-year) vs. long-term risk prediction. Calibration is slightly off using both models and indicates that expected risks are slightly higher than observed risks for both short-term and long-term models. Citation Format: Bernard A. Rosner. Validation of a simplified Rosner-Colditz breast cancer incidence model in the California Teachers9 Study. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Improving Cancer Risk Prediction for Prevention and Early Detection; Nov 16-19, 2016; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(5 Suppl):Abstract nr IA04.","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75141975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-05-01DOI: 10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA13
A. Douglas
Ovarian cancer has seen a modest improvement in five-year survival over the past three decades. It is well known that the lack of further success is solely due to the advanced stage at diagnosis for most women with ovarian cancers. To reduce the burden of ovarian cancer, we must decrease the incidence (primary prevention), improve early detection (secondary prevention), or develop more effective treatments for newly diagnosed disease (tertiary prevention). Large scale screening trials using traditional methods of imaging and tumor markers have not led to meaningfully stage migration, reduction in mortality, or widespread clinical adoption. In fact, the FDA recently issued a safety alert about the risks associated with the use of tests being marketed as ovarian cancer screening tests. The FDA was specifically concerned about ovarian cancer screening tests being used in lieu of established risk-reduction approaches. This presentation will review practical approaches to reducing the burden of ovarian cancer through primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Genetic testing of probands for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations alone and cascade testing of relatives are currently available approaches to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer by more than 10%. This tactic is consistent with professional guidelines and has the added advantage of identifying therapeutic options for ovarian cancer patients that could contribute to tertiary prevention efforts today and in the future. Lower penetrant genes also have the potential to lead to primary prevention through risk reduction strategies, but further data is required to firmly establish appropriate age-based recommendations. The identification of the distal fallopian tube as a likely site of origin for most ovarian cancers has opened a new domain for ovarian cancer primary prevention. Some governmental organizations suggest population-based bilateral salpingectomy at the time of any pelvic or abdominal surgery for primary prevention of ovarian cancers considering that one-third of US women will have a hysterectomy by age 70. The reasons for success and failure of this approach will be discussed. The fallopian tube as the site of origin for ovarian cancers has led to new approaches for early detection. The anatomy of the fallopian tube and its proximity to the lower genital tract has led to the development of creative strategies for sampling derivatives of precursor lesions and early invasive disease. Collection of uterine fluid for proteomic analyses and DNA sequencing holds promise for enrichment of cancer-specific biomolecules. Cervical pap smears and the collection of vaginal secretions offer a less invasive approach to early detection through similar theoretical avenues. Through the study of long-term survivors of advanced stage high-grade serous ovarian cancer, we have learned that primary surgical cytoreduction reduces the risk of cancer recurrence and serves as a useful approach to tertiary preve
{"title":"Abstract IA13: A practical approach to reducing the burden of ovarian cancers","authors":"A. Douglas","doi":"10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.CARISK16-IA13","url":null,"abstract":"Ovarian cancer has seen a modest improvement in five-year survival over the past three decades. It is well known that the lack of further success is solely due to the advanced stage at diagnosis for most women with ovarian cancers. To reduce the burden of ovarian cancer, we must decrease the incidence (primary prevention), improve early detection (secondary prevention), or develop more effective treatments for newly diagnosed disease (tertiary prevention). Large scale screening trials using traditional methods of imaging and tumor markers have not led to meaningfully stage migration, reduction in mortality, or widespread clinical adoption. In fact, the FDA recently issued a safety alert about the risks associated with the use of tests being marketed as ovarian cancer screening tests. The FDA was specifically concerned about ovarian cancer screening tests being used in lieu of established risk-reduction approaches. This presentation will review practical approaches to reducing the burden of ovarian cancer through primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Genetic testing of probands for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations alone and cascade testing of relatives are currently available approaches to reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer by more than 10%. This tactic is consistent with professional guidelines and has the added advantage of identifying therapeutic options for ovarian cancer patients that could contribute to tertiary prevention efforts today and in the future. Lower penetrant genes also have the potential to lead to primary prevention through risk reduction strategies, but further data is required to firmly establish appropriate age-based recommendations. The identification of the distal fallopian tube as a likely site of origin for most ovarian cancers has opened a new domain for ovarian cancer primary prevention. Some governmental organizations suggest population-based bilateral salpingectomy at the time of any pelvic or abdominal surgery for primary prevention of ovarian cancers considering that one-third of US women will have a hysterectomy by age 70. The reasons for success and failure of this approach will be discussed. The fallopian tube as the site of origin for ovarian cancers has led to new approaches for early detection. The anatomy of the fallopian tube and its proximity to the lower genital tract has led to the development of creative strategies for sampling derivatives of precursor lesions and early invasive disease. Collection of uterine fluid for proteomic analyses and DNA sequencing holds promise for enrichment of cancer-specific biomolecules. Cervical pap smears and the collection of vaginal secretions offer a less invasive approach to early detection through similar theoretical avenues. Through the study of long-term survivors of advanced stage high-grade serous ovarian cancer, we have learned that primary surgical cytoreduction reduces the risk of cancer recurrence and serves as a useful approach to tertiary preve","PeriodicalId":9487,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84297702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}