RESUMO
Advances in science and technology in the past century and a half have helped improve disease management, prevention, and early diagnosis and better health maintenance. These have led to a longer life expectancy in most developed and middle-income countries. However, resource- and infrastructure-scarce countries and populations have not enjoyed these benefits. Furthermore, in every society, including in developed nations, the lag time from new advances, either in the laboratory or from clinical trials, to using those findings in day-to-day medical practice often takes many years and sometimes close to or longer than a decade. A similar trend is seen in the application of "precision medicine" (PM) in terms of improving population health (PH). One of the reasons for such lack of application of precision medicine in population health is the misunderstanding of equating precision medicine with genomic medicine (GM) as if they are the same. Precision medicine needs to be recognized as encompassing genomic medicine in addition to other new developments such as big data analytics, electronic health records (EHR), telemedicine, and information communication technology. By leveraging these new developments together and applying well-tested epidemiological concepts, it can be posited that population/public health can be improved. In this paper, we take cancer as an example of the benefits of recognizing the potential of precision medicine in applying it to population/public health. Breast cancer and cervical cancer are taken as examples to demonstrate these hypotheses. There exists significant evidence already to show the importance of recognizing "precision population medicine" (PPM) in improving cancer outcomes not only in individual patients but also for its applications in early detection and cancer screening (especially in high-risk populations) and achieving those goals in a more cost-efficient manner that can reach resource- and infrastructure-scarce societies and populations. This is the first report of a series that will focus on individual cancer sites in the future.
RESUMO
Breast conservation therapy (BCT) (usually a lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (RT)) has become a standard alternative to radical mastectomy in early-stage breast cancers with equal, if not higher, survival rates. The established standard of the RT component of the BCT had been about six weeks of Monday through Friday external beam RT to the whole breast (WBRT). Recent clinical trials have shown that partial breast radiation therapy (PBRT) to the region surrounding the lumpectomy cavity with shorter courses can result in equal local control, survival, and slightly improved cosmetic outcomes. Intraoperative RT (IORT) wherein RT is administered at the time of operation for BCT to the lumpectomy cavity as a single-fraction RT is also considered PBRT. The advantage of IORT is that weeks of RT are avoided. However, the role of IORT as part of BCT has been controversial. The extreme views go from "I will not recommend to anyone" to "I can recommend to all early-stage favorable patients." These divergent views are due to difficulty in interpreting the clinical trial results. There are two modalities of delivering IORT, namely, the use of low-energy 50 kV beams or electron beams. There are several retrospective, prospective, and two randomized clinical trials comparing IORT versus WBRT. Yet, the opinions are divided. In this paper, we try to bring clarity and consensus from a highly broad-based multidisciplinary team approach. The multidisciplinary team included breast surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, biostatisticians, public health experts, nurse practitioners, and medical oncologists. We show that there is a need to more carefully interpret and differentiate the data based on electron versus low-dose X-ray modalities; the randomized study results have to be extremely carefully dissected from biostatistical points of view; the importance of the involvement of patients and families in the decision making in a very transparent and informed manner needs to be emphasized; and the compromise some women may be willing to accept between 2-4% potential increase in local recurrence (as interpreted by some of the investigators in IORT randomized studies) versus mastectomy. We conclude that, ultimately, the choice should be that of women with detailed facts of the pros and cons of all options being presented to them from the angle of patient/family-focused care. Although the guidelines of various professional societies can be helpful, they are only guidelines. The participation of women in IORT clinical trials is still needed, and as genome-based and omics-based fine-tuning of prognostic fingerprints evolve, the current guidelines need to be revisited. Finally, the use of IORT can help rural, socioeconomically, and infrastructure-deprived populations and geographic regions as the convenience of single-fraction RT and the possibility of breast preservation are likely to encourage more women to choose BCT than mastectomy. This option can also likely lead to more women choosing to get screened for breast cancer, thus enabling the diagnosis of breast cancer at an earlier stage and improving the survival outcomes.
