Evolution of the "drivers" of translational cancer epidemiology: analysis of funded grants and the literature.

Concurrently with a workshop sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, we identified key "drivers" for accelerating cancer epidemiology across the translational research continuum in the 21st century: emerging technologies, a multilevel approach, knowledge integration, and team science. To map the evolution of these "drivers" and translational phases (T0-T4) in the past decade, we analyzed cancer epidemiology grants funded by the National Cancer Institute and published literature for 2000, 2005, and 2010. For each year, we evaluated the aims of all new/competing grants and abstracts of randomly selected PubMed articles. Compared with grants based on a single institution, consortium-based grants were more likely to incorporate contemporary technologies (P = 0.012), engage in multilevel analyses (P = 0.010), and incorporate elements of knowledge integration (P = 0.036). Approximately 74% of analyzed grants and publications involved discovery (T0) or characterization (T1) research, suggesting a need for more translational (T2-T4) research. Our evaluation indicated limited research in 1) a multilevel approach that incorporates molecular, individual, social, and environmental determinants and 2) knowledge integration that evaluates the robustness of scientific evidence. Cancer epidemiology is at the cusp of a paradigm shift, and the field will need to accelerate the pace of translating scientific discoveries in order to impart population health benefits. While multi-institutional and technology-driven collaboration is happening, concerted efforts to incorporate other key elements are warranted for the discipline to meet future challenges.

An overview of recommendations and translational milestones for genomic tests in cancer.

PURPOSE: To understand the translational trajectory of genomic tests in cancer screening, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment, we reviewed tests that have been assessed by recommendation and guideline developers. METHODS: For each test, we marked translational milestones by determining when the genomic association with cancer was first discovered and studied in patients, and when a health application for a specified clinical use was successfully demonstrated and approved or cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration. To identify recommendations and guidelines, we reviewed the websites of cancer, genomic, and general guideline developers and professional organizations. We searched the in vitro diagnostics database of the US Food and Drug Administration for information, and we searched PubMed for translational milestones. Milestones were examined against type of recommendation, Food and Drug Administration approval or clearance, disease rarity, and test purpose. RESULTS: Of the 45 tests we identified, 9 received strong recommendations for their usage in clinical settings, 14 received positive but moderate recommendations, and 22 were not currently recommended. For 18 tests, two or more different sources had issued recommendations, with 67% concordance. Only five tests had Food and Drug Administration approval, and an additional five had clearance. The median time from discovery to recommendation statement was 14.7 years. CONCLUSION: In general, there were no associations found between translational trajectory and recommendation category.Genet Med 17 6, 431-440.

Evidence synthesis and guideline development in genomic medicine: current status and future prospects.

PURPOSE: With the accelerated implementation of genomic medicine, health-care providers will depend heavily on professional guidelines and recommendations. Because genomics affects many diseases across the life span, no single professional group covers the entirety of this rapidly developing field. METHODS: To pursue a discussion of the minimal elements needed to develop evidence-based guidelines in genomics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute jointly held a workshop to engage representatives from 35 organizations with interest in genomics (13 of which make recommendations). The workshop explored methods used in evidence synthesis and guideline development and initiated a dialogue to compare these methods and to assess whether they are consistent with the Institute of Medicine report "Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust." RESULTS: The participating organizations that develop guidelines or recommendations all had policies to manage guideline development and group membership, and processes to address conflicts of interests. However, there was wide variation in the reliance on external reviews, regular updating of recommendations, and use of systematic reviews to assess the strength of scientific evidence. CONCLUSION: Ongoing efforts are required to establish criteria for guideline development in genomic medicine as proposed by the Institute of Medicine.

Prevalence and correlates of receiving and sharing high-penetrance cancer genetic test results: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence and correlates of receiving and sharing high-penetrance cancer genetic test results. METHODS: Participants completed the population-based, cross-sectional 2013 Health Information National Trends Survey. We examined sociodemographic characteristics of participants reporting having had BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome genetic testing, and sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates of sharing test results with health professionals and family members. RESULTS: Participants who underwent BRCA1/2 or Lynch syndrome genetic testing (n = 77; 2.42% of respondents) were more likely to be female and to have a family or personal history of cancer than those not undergoing testing. Approximately three-quarters of participants shared results with health professionals and three-quarters with their family; only 4% did not share results with anyone. Participants who shared results with health professionals reported greater optimism, self-efficacy for health management, and trust in information from their doctors. Participants who shared results with their family were more likely to be female and to have a personal history of cancer, and had greater self-efficacy for health management, perceived less ambiguity in cancer prevention recommendations, and lower cancer prevention fatalism. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several novel psychosocial correlates of sharing genetic information. Health professionals may use this information to identify patients less likely to share information with at-risk family members.

A systematic review of cancer GWAS and candidate gene meta-analyses reveals limited overlap but similar effect sizes.

Candidate gene and genome-wide association studies (GWAS) represent two complementary approaches to uncovering genetic contributions to common diseases. We systematically reviewed the contributions of these approaches to our knowledge of genetic associations with cancer risk by analyzing the data in the Cancer Genome-wide Association and Meta Analyses database (Cancer GAMAdb). The database catalogs studies published since January 1, 2000, by study and cancer type. In all, we found that meta-analyses and pooled analyses of candidate genes reported 349 statistically significant associations and GWAS reported 269, for a total of 577 unique associations. Only 41 (7.1%) associations were reported in both candidate gene meta-analyses and GWAS, usually with similar effect sizes. When considering only noteworthy associations (defined as those with false-positive report probabilities≤0.2) and accounting for indirect overlap, we found 202 associations, with 27 of those appearing in both meta-analyses and GWAS. Our findings suggest that meta-analyses of well-conducted candidate gene studies may continue to add to our understanding of the genetic associations in the post-GWAS era.

The geometric increase in meta-analyses from China in the genomic era.

Meta-analyses are increasingly popular. It is unknown whether this popularity is driven by specific countries and specific meta-analyses types. PubMed was used to identify meta-analyses since 1995 (last update 9/1/2012) and catalogue their types and country of origin. We focused more on meta-analyses from China (the current top producer of meta-analyses) versus the USA (top producer until recently). The annual number of meta-analyses from China increased 40-fold between 2003 and 2011 versus 2.4-fold for the USA. The growth of Chinese meta-analyses was driven by genetics (110-fold increase in 2011 versus 2003). The HuGE Navigator identified 612 meta-analyses of genetic association studies published in 2012 from China versus only 109 from the USA. We compared in-depth 50 genetic association meta-analyses from China versus 50 from USA in 2012. Meta-analyses from China almost always used only literature-based data (92%), and focused on one or two genes (94%) and variants (78%) identified with candidate gene approaches (88%), while many USA meta-analyses used genome-wide approaches and raw data. Both groups usually concluded favorably for the presence of genetic associations (80% versus 74%), but nominal significance (P<0.05) typically sufficed in the China group. Meta-analyses from China typically neglected genome-wide data, and often included candidate gene studies published in Chinese-language journals. Overall, there is an impressive rise of meta-analyses from China, particularly on genetic associations. Since most claimed candidate gene associations are likely false-positives, there is an urgent global need to incorporate genome-wide data and state-of-the art statistical inferences to avoid a flood of false-positive genetic meta-analyses.