Trends in the lifetime risk of developing cancer in Great Britain: comparison of risk for those born from 1930 to 1960

BACKGROUND: Typically, lifetime risk is calculated by the period method using current risks at different ages. Here, we estimate the probability of being diagnosed with cancer for individuals born in a given year, by estimating future risks as the cohort ages. METHODS: We estimated the lifetime risk of cancer in Britain separately for men and women born in each year from 1930 to 1960. We projected rates of all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) and of all cancer deaths forwards using a flexible age-period-cohort model and backwards using age-specific extrapolation. The sensitivity of the estimated lifetime risk to the method of projection was explored. RESULTS: The lifetime risk of cancer increased from 38.5% for men born in 1930 to 53.5% for men born in 1960. For women it increased from 36.7 to 47.5%. Results are robust to different models for projections of cancer rates. CONCLUSIONS: The lifetime risk of cancer for people born since 1960 is >50%. Over half of people who are currently adults under the age of 65 years will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lifetime

Treating phenotype as given: a simple resampling method for genome-wide association studies

Significance of genetic association to a marker has been traditionally evaluated through statistics that are standardized such that their null distributions conform to some known ones. Distributional assumptions are often required in this standardization procedure. Based on the observation that the phenotype remains the same regardless of the marker being investigated, we propose a simple statistic that does not need such standardization. We propose a resampling procedure to assess this statistic’s genome-wide significance. This method has been applied to replicate 2 of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 17 simulated data on unrelated individuals in an attempt to map phenotype Q2. However, none of the selected SNPs are in genes that are disease-causing. This may be due to the weak effect that each genetic factor has on Q2

Explaining the Better Prognosis of ScreeningExposed Breast Cancers: Influence of Tumor Characteristics and Treatment

This study was funded by a grant from the UK Department of Health (no. 106/0001). The grant was awarded to Prof Stephen W Duffy

Considerations for using potential surrogate endpoints in cancer screening trials.

The requirement of large-scale expensive cancer screening trials spanning decades creates considerable barriers to the development, commercialisation, and implementation of novel screening tests. One way to address these problems is to use surrogate endpoints for the ultimate endpoint of interest, cancer mortality, at an earlier timepoint. This Review aims to highlight the issues underlying the choice and use of surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials, to propose criteria for when and how we might use such endpoints, and to suggest possible candidates. We present the current landscape and challenges, and discuss lessons and shortcomings from the therapeutic trial setting. It is hugely challenging to validate a surrogate endpoint, even with carefully designed clinical studies. Nevertheless, we consider whether there are candidates that might satisfy the requirements defined by research and regulatory bodies

Impact of screening on cervical cancer incidence: A population-based case-control study in the United States.

Cervical cancer is widely preventable through screening, but little is known about the duration of protection offered by a negative screen in North America. A case-control study was conducted with records from population-based registries in New Mexico. Cases were women diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2006-2016, obtained from the Tumor Registry. Five controls per case from the New Mexico HPV Pap Registry were matched to cases by sex, age and place of residence. Dates and results of all cervical screening and diagnostic tests since 2006 were identified from the pap registry. We estimated the odds ratio of nonlocalized (Stage II+) and localized (Stage I) cervical cancer associated with attending screening in the 3 years prior to case-diagnosis compared to women not screened in 5 years. Of 876 cases, 527 were aged 25-64 years with ≥3 years of potential screening data. Only 38% of cases and 61% of controls attended screening in a 3-year period. Women screened in the 3 years prior to diagnosis had 83% lower risk of nonlocalized cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.12-0.24) and 48% lower odds of localized cancer (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.38-0.72), compared to women not screened in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Women remained at low risk of nonlocalized cancer for 3.5-5 years after a negative screen compared to women with no negative screens in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Routine cervical screening is effective at preventing localized and nonlocalized cervical cancers; 3 yearly screening prevents 83% of nonlocalized cancers, with no additional benefit of more frequent screening. Increasing screening coverage remains essential to further reduce cervical cancer incidence.This work was supported by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) U54CA164336 to CMW (CMW, CLW, MR) with subcontracts to Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas (YJM, DWG) and to University of Alabama at Birmingham (ICS) and by the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases U19AI113187 to CMW with subcontract to Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) (JC, PDS). This project was also supported by Contract HHSN261201800014I, Task Order HHSN26100001 from the National Cancer Institute (CLW). In addition, support was received from Cancer Research UK programme grants C8161/A1689 to PDS (RL, CM) and C569/A16891 to JC, from NCI P30CA118100 (to CL Willman) (YJM) and the Ford Foundation (YJM)

Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from the BEST3 trial

Background The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett’s oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett’s. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. Methods Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7–14 days after the Cytosponge test. Study cohort All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). Statistical analysis A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. ‘Least positive’ experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the ‘least positive’ category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. Results The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5–2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03–4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71–7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14–5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. Conclusion We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401