Hawk, Ernest T.

Guideline-recommended screening programs exist for only a few single-cancer types, and these cancers represent less than one-half of all new cancer cases diagnosed each year in the U.S. In addition, these “single-cancer” standard of care (SoC) screening tests vary in accuracy, adherence, and effectiveness, though all are generally understood to lead to reductions in cancer-related mortality. Recent advances in high-throughput technologies and machine learning have facilitated the development of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests. The opportunity for early detection of multiple cancers with a single blood test holds promise in addressing the current unmet need in cancer screening. By complementing existing SoC screening, MCED tests have the potential to detect a wide range of cancers at earlier stages when patients are asymptomatic, enabling more effective treatment options and improved cancer outcomes. MCED tests are positioned to be utilized as a complementary screening tool to improve screening adherence at the population level, to broaden screening availability for individuals who are not adherent with SoC screening programs, as well as for those who may harbor cancers that do not have SoC testing available. Published work to date has primarily focused on test performance relating to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). MCED tests will require approval through the pre-market approval pathway from the United States Food and Drug Administration. Additional studies will be needed to demonstrate clinical utility (i.e., improvements in health outcomes) and establish optimal implementation strategies, (i.e., testing intervals), follow-up and logistics of shared decision making. Here, we propose core attributes of MCED testing for which clinical data are needed to ideally position MCED testing for widespread use in clinical practice.

Background and Aims: Despite the substantial impact of environmental factors, individuals with a family history of liver cancer have an increased risk for HCC. However, genetic factors have not been studied systematically by genome-wide approaches in large numbers of individuals from European descent populations (EDP). Approach and Results: We conducted a 2-stage genome-wide association study (GWAS) on HCC not affected by HBV infections. A total of 1872 HCC cases and 2907 controls were included in the discovery stage, and 1200 HCC cases and 1832 controls in the validation. We analyzed the discovery and validation samples separately and then conducted a meta-analysis. All analyses were conducted in the presence and absence of HCV. The liability-scale heritability was 24.4% for overall HCC. Five regions with significant ORs (95% CI) were identified for nonviral HCC: 3p22.1, MOBP, rs9842969, (0.51, [0.40–0.65]); 5p15.33, TERT, rs2242652, (0.70, (0.62–0.79]); 19q13.11, TM6SF2, rs58542926, (1.49, [1.29–1.72]); 19p13.11 MAU2, rs58489806, (1.53, (1.33–1.75]); and 22q13.31, PNPLA3, rs738409, (1.66, [1.51–1.83]). One region was identified for HCV-induced HCC: 6p21.31, human leukocyte antigen DQ beta 1, rs9275224, (0.79, [0.74–0.84]). A combination of homozygous variants of PNPLA3 and TERT showing a 6.5-fold higher risk for nonviral-related HCC compared to individuals lacking these genotypes. This observation suggests that gene-gene interactions may identify individuals at elevated risk for developing HCC. Conclusions: Our GWAS highlights novel genetic susceptibility of nonviral HCC among European descent populations from North America with substantial heritability. Selected genetic influences were observed for HCV-positive HCC. Our findings indicate the importance of genetic susceptibility to HCC development.

Minimally invasive molecular biomarkers have been applied to the early detection of multiple cancers in large scale case‐control and cohort studies. These demonstrations of feasibility herald the potential for permanent transformation of current cancer screening paradigms. This commentary discusses the major opportunities and challenges facing the preclinical development and clinical validation of multicancer early detection test strategies. From a diverse set of early detection research perspectives, the authors recommend specific approaches and highlight important questions for future investigation.

Abstract Aberrant crypt foci (ACF) are the earliest visible neoplastic lesions in the colorectum. The natural history of these lesions and their role in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence are unknown. We studied ACF in a subset of patients enrolled in the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) Trial to determine whether the presence of ACF in the rectum correlated with that of adenomas in the entire large intestine. Participants were randomized to placebo (n=17), celecoxib 200 mg bid (n=15), or celecoxib 400 mg bid (n=13). Magnification chromoendoscopy (MCE) was performed to identify and biopsy ACF within the rectum at baseline and after 8-12 months of medication use. A total of 670 ACF were identified in 45 patients, and 70 of these were examined histologically. All of the ACF examined were non-dysplastic. Analysis showed no differences in ACF number between baseline and post-treatment studies (8.3±1.0 vs. 6.3±1.1) and no modulation by treatment (celecoxib vs placebo; p=0.77). Immunohistochemical studies showed that ACF contained cells exhibiting increased proliferation, but lacked other features of neoplasia such as increased Cox-2 expression and microvascular density, nuclear localization of β-catenin, or decreased expression of the tumor suppressors SMAD4, estrogen receptor (ERα) or MGMT. Of the secondary markers assessed at baseline, only SMAD4 expression correlated with post-treatment adenoma recurrence. Taken together, these data showed that non-dysplastic ACF are not accurate surrogate endpoint biomarkers of colorectal adenoma risk or NSAID chemoprevention response.

Abstract The recent pace, extent, and impact of paradigm-changing cancer prevention science has been remarkable. The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) convened a 3-day summit, aligned with five research priorities: (i) Precancer Atlas (PCA). (ii) Cancer interception. (iii) Obesity-cancer linkage, a global epidemic of chronic low-grade inflammation. (iv) Implementation science. (v) Cancer disparities. Aligned with these priorities, AACR co-led the Lancet Commission to formally endorse and accelerate the NCI Cancer Moonshot program, facilitating new global collaborative efforts in cancer control. The expanding scope of creative impact is perhaps most startling—from NCI-funded built environments to AACR Team Science Awarded studies of Asian cancer genomes informing global primary prevention policies; cell-free epigenetic marks identifying incipient neoplastic site; practice-changing genomic subclasses in myeloproliferative neoplasia (including germline variant tightly linked to JAK2 V617F haplotype); universal germline genetic testing for pancreatic cancer; and repurposing drugs targeting immune- and stem-cell signals (e.g., IL-1β, PD-1, RANK-L) to cancer interception. Microbiota-driven IL-17 can induce stemness and transformation in pancreatic precursors (identifying another repurposing opportunity). Notable progress also includes hosting an obesity special conference (connecting epidemiologic and molecular perspectives to inform cancer research and prevention strategies), co-leading concerted national implementation efforts in HPV vaccination, and charting the future elimination of cancer disparities by integrating new science tools, discoveries and perspectives into community-engaged research, including targeted counter attacks on e-cigarette ad exploitation of children, Hispanics and Blacks. Following this summit, two unprecedented funding initiatives were catalyzed to drive cancer prevention research: the NCI Cancer Moonshot (e.g., PCA and disparities); and the AACR-Stand Up To Cancer bold “Cancer Interception” initiative.

Background and aim Although Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce colorectal adenoma burden in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), the utility of combining chemopreventive agents in FAP is not known. We conducted a randomised trial of celecoxib (CXB) versus CXB+diflouromethylornithine (DFMO) to determine the synergistic effect, if any. Methods The primary endpoint was % change in adenoma count in a defined field. Secondary endpoints were adenoma burden (weighted by adenoma diameter) and video review of entire colon/rectal segments. Adverse event (AEs) were monitored by National Cancer Institution toxicity criteria. Results 112 subjects were randomised: 60 men and 52 women at a mean age of 38 years. For the 89 patients who had landmark-matched polyp counts available at baseline and 6 months, the mean % change in adenoma count over the 6 months of trial was −13.0% for CXB+DFMO and −1.0% for CXB (p=0.69). Mean % change in adenoma burden was −40% (CXB+DFMO) vs −27% (CXB) (p=0.13). Video-based global polyp change was −0.80 for CXB+DFMO vs −0.33 for CXB (p=0.03). Fatigue was the only significant AE, worse on the CXB arm (p=0.02). Conclusions CXB combined with DFMO yielded moderate synergy according to a video-based global assessment. No significant difference in adenoma count, the primary endpoint, was seen between the two study arms. No evidence of DFMO-related ototoxicity was seen. There were no adverse cardiovascular outcomes in either trial arm and no significant increase in AEs in the CXB+DFMO arm of the trial. Differences in outcomes between primary and secondary endpoints may relate to sensitivity of the endpoint measures themselves. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov number N01-CN95040.

The following, from the 12th OESO World Conference: Cancers of the Esophagus, includes commentaries on the animal reflux–inflammation models for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma; genomic/epigenomic analyses; eflornithine‐based combinations; the molecular derangements that promote neoplastic transformation; the role of COX‐2 inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors, and phase II trials in Barrett's adenocarcinoma; statins in chemoprevention and treatment of esophageal cancer; and biomarkers as potential targets in Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUNDTo ensure that National Institutes of Health‐funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.METHODSEMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.RESULTSCancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.CONCLUSIONSCatchment area definitions and the collection of patient‐level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States. Cancer 2014;120(7 suppl):1113–21. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Abstract Barrett's esophagus is the precursor lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma, whose progression follows sequential stages. However, the low progression rate and the inadequacy and subjective interpretation of histologic grading in predicting Barrett's esophagus progression call for more objective biomarkers that can improve risk prediction. We conducted a genome-wide profiling of 754 human microRNAs (miRNA) in 35 normal epithelium, 34 Barrett's esophagus, and 36 esophageal adenocarcinoma tissues using TaqMan real-time PCR-based profiling. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering using 294 modestly to highly expressed miRNAs showed clear clustering of two groups: normal epithelium versus Barrett's esophagus/esophageal adenocarcinoma tissues. Moreover, there was an excellent clustering of Barrett's metaplasia (without dysplasia) tissues from normal epithelium tissues. However, Barrett's esophagus tissues of different stages and esophageal adenocarcinoma tissues were interspersed. There were differentially expressed miRNAs at different stages. The majority of miRNA aberrations involved upregulation of expression in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma tissues, with the most dramatic alterations occurring at the Barrett's metaplasia stage. Known oncomiRs, such as miR-21, miR-25, and miR-223, and tumor suppressor miRNAs, including miR-205, miR-203, let-7c, and miR-133a, showed progressively altered expression from Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma. We also identified a number of novel miRNAs that showed progressively altered expression, including miR-301b, miR-618, and miR-23b. The significant miRNA alterations that were exclusive to esophageal adenocarcinoma but not Barrett's esophagus included miR-375 downregulation and upregulation of five members of the miR-17-92 and its homologue clusters, which may become promising biomarkers for esophageal adenocarcinoma development. Cancer Prev Res; 6(3); 196–205. ©2013 AACR.