Literature DB >> 24706727

Cancer screening and genetics: a tale of two paradigms.

Jada G Hamilton1, Heather M Edwards2, Muin J Khoury3, Stephen H Taplin2.   

Abstract

The long-standing medical tradition to "first do no harm" is reflected in population-wide evidence-based recommendations for cancer screening tests that focus primarily on reducing morbidity and mortality. The conventional cancer screening process is predicated on finding early-stage disease that can be treated effectively; yet emerging genetic and genomic testing technologies have moved the target earlier in the disease development process to identify a probabilistic predisposition to disease. Genetic risk information can have varying implications for the health and well-being of patients and their relatives, and has raised important questions about the evaluation and value of risk information. This article explores the paradigms that are being applied to the evaluation of conventional cancer screening tests and emerging genetic and genomic tests of cancer susceptibility, and how these perspectives are shifting and evolving in response to advances in our ability to detect cancer risks. We consider several challenges germane to the evaluation of both categories of tests, including defining benefits and harms in terms of personal and clinical utility, addressing healthcare consumers' information preferences, and managing scientific uncertainty. We encourage research and dialogue aimed at developing a better understanding of the value of all risk information, nongenetic and genetic, to people's lives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(6); 909-16. ©2014 AACR. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24706727      PMCID: PMC4047129          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  48 in total

1.  Mandatory extended searches in all genome sequencing: "incidental findings," patient autonomy, and shared decision making.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Mark A Rothstein; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Genetic screening.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Beth Tarini; Nancy A Press; James P Evans
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2011-06-27       Impact factor: 6.222

3.  The public's response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 recommendations on mammography screening.

Authors:  Linda B Squiers; Debra J Holden; Suzanne E Dolina; Annice E Kim; Carla M Bann; Jeanette M Renaud
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Introduction: Understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Heather M Edwards; Mary K Foster; Erica S Breslau; Veronica Chollette; Irene Prabhu Das; Steven B Clauser; Mary L Fennell; Jane Zapka
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

5.  Passing years, changing fears? Conceptualizing and measuring risk perceptions for chronic disease in younger and middle-aged women.

Authors:  Jada G Hamilton; Marci Lobel
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2011-04-13

6.  Revisions in the risk-based Breast Cancer Screening Program at Group Health Cooperative.

Authors:  S H Taplin; R S Thompson; F Schnitzer; C Anderman; V Immanuel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  The rules remain the same for genomic medicine: the case against "reverse genetic exceptionalism".

Authors:  James P Evans; Wylie Burke; Muin Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Incidental findings in clinical genomics: a clarification.

Authors: 
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-07-04       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 10.  Incorporating genomics into breast and prostate cancer screening: assessing the implications.

Authors:  Susmita Chowdhury; Tom Dent; Nora Pashayan; Alison Hall; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Nina Hallowell; Per Hall; Paul Pharoah; Hilary Burton
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  5 in total

1.  Aggregate penetrance of genomic variants for actionable disorders in European and African Americans.

Authors:  Pradeep Natarajan; Nina B Gold; Alexander G Bick; Heather McLaughlin; Peter Kraft; Heidi L Rehm; Gina M Peloso; James G Wilson; Adolfo Correa; Jonathan G Seidman; Christine E Seidman; Sekar Kathiresan; Robert C Green
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 2.  The hallmarks of premalignant conditions: a molecular basis for cancer prevention.

Authors:  Bríd M Ryan; Jessica M Faupel-Badger
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 4.929

3.  Threshold-free measures for assessing the performance of medical screening tests.

Authors:  Yan Yuan; Wanhua Su; Mu Zhu
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2015-04-20

Review 4.  Cancer prevention as part of precision medicine: 'plenty to be done'.

Authors:  Bernard W Stewart; Freddie Bray; David Forman; Hiroko Ohgaki; Kurt Straif; Andreas Ullrich; Christopher P Wild
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 5.  Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities.

Authors:  Sarah Briggs; Ingrid Slade
Journal:  Curr Genet Med Rep       Date:  2019-05-18
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.