Randa A El-Zein1, Carol J Etzel2, Reginald F Munden3. 1. Department of Radiology, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Corrona, LLC, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Wake Forest Baptist Health and School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the promising results of the National Lung Screening Trial in reducing lung cancer mortality among high risk smokers, several challenges remain to be addressed. These include the high false positive rates and the large number of smokers screened in order to prevent one lung cancer death. In addition, host genetic susceptibility has not been integrated into selection of who should be screened. These challenges highlight the need to develop robust ways to identify susceptible smokers for appropriate screening. METHODS: We used the cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay to assess smoking induced genetic instability among NLST participants. Blood cultures were prepared at time of entry into the screening study and DNA damage was recorded as the frequency of binucleated nucleoplasmic bridges and micronuclei. Low dose CT (LDCT) and chest X-ray (CXR) image findings were available upon unblinding of the NLST study and imaging data were merged with blood marker data for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 641 participants were included in this study. The frequency of the CBMN endpoints at time of entry into the study was significantly higher among study participants who had a positive finding during the 3-year screening or reported lung cancer at the end of the follow-up period as compared to participants who were negative. Growth curve models were used to compare trajectories of change in CBMN endpoints between entry into the study and end-of-screening period. A statistically significant increase was predicted for CBMN endpoints among the study participants who were positive versus those who remained negative at the end-of-screening period (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic instability biomarkers have the potential of facilitating the identification of genetically susceptible high-risk smokers who would benefit from targeted lung screening programs.
BACKGROUND: Despite the promising results of the National Lung Screening Trial in reducing lung cancer mortality among high risk smokers, several challenges remain to be addressed. These include the high false positive rates and the large number of smokers screened in order to prevent one lung cancer death. In addition, host genetic susceptibility has not been integrated into selection of who should be screened. These challenges highlight the need to develop robust ways to identify susceptible smokers for appropriate screening. METHODS: We used the cytokinesis block micronucleus (CBMN) assay to assess smoking induced genetic instability among NLST participants. Blood cultures were prepared at time of entry into the screening study and DNA damage was recorded as the frequency of binucleated nucleoplasmic bridges and micronuclei. Low dose CT (LDCT) and chest X-ray (CXR) image findings were available upon unblinding of the NLST study and imaging data were merged with blood marker data for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 641 participants were included in this study. The frequency of the CBMN endpoints at time of entry into the study was significantly higher among study participants who had a positive finding during the 3-year screening or reported lung cancer at the end of the follow-up period as compared to participants who were negative. Growth curve models were used to compare trajectories of change in CBMN endpoints between entry into the study and end-of-screening period. A statistically significant increase was predicted for CBMN endpoints among the study participants who were positive versus those who remained negative at the end-of-screening period (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic instability biomarkers have the potential of facilitating the identification of genetically susceptible high-risk smokers who would benefit from targeted lung screening programs.
Authors: Margaret R Spitz; Waun Ki Hong; Christopher I Amos; Xifeng Wu; Matthew B Schabath; Qiong Dong; Sanjay Shete; Carol J Etzel Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-05-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christopher I Amos; Xifeng Wu; Peter Broderick; Ivan P Gorlov; Jian Gu; Timothy Eisen; Qiong Dong; Qing Zhang; Xiangjun Gu; Jayaram Vijayakrishnan; Kate Sullivan; Athena Matakidou; Yufei Wang; Gordon Mills; Kimberly Doheny; Ya-Yu Tsai; Wei Vivien Chen; Sanjay Shete; Margaret R Spitz; Richard S Houlston Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: L Hagmar; S Bonassi; U Strömberg; Z Mikoczy; C Lando; I L Hansteen; A H Montagud; L Knudsen; H Norppa; C Reuterwall; H Tinnerberg; A Brøgger; A Forni; B Högstedt; B Lambert; F Mitelman; I Nordenson; S Salomaa; S Skerfving Journal: Recent Results Cancer Res Date: 1998
Authors: Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; Thomas E Hartman; David E Midthun; Jeff A Sloan; Anne-Marie Sykes; Gregory L Aughenbaugh; Medy A Clemens Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; Hormuzd A Katki; Stephanie A Kovalchik; Martin Tammemagi; Christine D Berg; Neil E Caporaso; Tom L Riley; Mary Korch; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jennifer Gantchev; Brandon Ramchatesingh; Melissa Berman-Rosa; Daniel Sikorski; Keerthenan Raveendra; Laetitia Amar; Hong Hao Xu; Amelia Martínez Villarreal; Daniel Josue Guerra Ordaz; Ivan V Litvinov Journal: J Cell Commun Signal Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 5.908
Authors: Tim Beißbarth; Hendrik Andreas Wolff; Leif Hendrik Dröge; Steffen Hennies; Stephan Lorenzen; Lena-Christin Conradi; Henriette Quack; Torsten Liersch; Christian Helms; Miriam Alice Frank; Markus Anton Schirmer; Margret Rave-Fränk Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.430