NcXHF

CANCER SCREENING AND SURVEILLANCE
A multitude of blood-based biomarkers have previously
been proposed as cancer screening tests, but none have yet
proven to be clinically useful, demonstrating the many challenges
of translating initially promising data to a clinical reality.
ctDNA-based cancer screening tests would appear
feasible, given the available data regarding sensitivity and specifıcity.
From here, carefully conducted clinical studies are required
to determine the risks and benefıts of early diagnosis
across a broad range of tumor types, the optimal frequency of
testing, the most desired ctDNA panel, the most effıcient algorithms
for further investigation of any positive test, and the patient
populations that will benefıt most from screening.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Joshua D. Schiffman holds the Edward B. Clark MD Endowed
Chair in Pediatric Research at the University of Utah and is
supported through the Primary Children’s Hospital Pediatric
Cancer Program, funded by the Intermountain Healthcare
Foundation and the Primary Children’s Hospital Foundation.
Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Relationships are considered self-held and compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships marked “L” indicate leadership positions. Relationships marked “I” are those held by an immediate
family member; those marked “B” are held by the author and an immediate family member. Institutional relationships are marked “Inst.” Relationships marked “U” are uncompensated.
Employment: None. Leadership Position: None. Stock or Other Ownership Interests: None. Honoraria: Joshua D. Schiffman, Affymetrix, Inc. Consulting
or Advisory Role: None. Speakers’ Bureau: None. Research Funding: None. Patents, Royalties, or Other Intellectual Property: None. Expert
Testimony: None. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: None. Other Relationships: None.
References
1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin.
2014;64:9-29.
2. Porta MA. A Dictionary of Epidemiology (6th ed). New York: Oxford
University Press; 2014.
3. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, et al. Comparison of digital rectal
examination and serum prostate specifıc antigen in the early detection
of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men.
J Urol. 1994;151:1283-1290.
4. Moyer VA, U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Screening for prostate
cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120-134.
5. Basch E, Oliver TK, Vickers A, et al. Screening for prostate cancer with
prostate-specifıc antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology
Provisional Clinical Opinion. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3020-3025.
6. Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in
the United States, 2015: a review of current American Cancer Society
guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin.
2015;65:30-54.
7. Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology
2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in
breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5287-5312.
8. Ramsey SD, Henry NL, Gralow JR, et al. Tumor marker usage and medical
care costs among older early-stage breast cancer survivors. J Clin
Oncol. 2015;33:149-155.
9. Han PK, Klabunde CN, Noone AM, et al. Physicians’ beliefs about
breast cancer surveillance testing are consistent with test overuse. Med
Care. 2013;51:315-323.
10. Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefıts and risks to
guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014;311:1327-1335.
11. Elmore JG, Kramer BS. Breast cancer screening: toward informed decisions.
JAMA. 2014;311:1298-1299.
12. Elmore JG, Harris RP. The harms and benefıts of modern screening
mammography. BMJ. 2014;348:g3824.
13. Weedon-Fekjaer H, Romundstad PR, Vatten LJ. Modern mammography
screening and breast cancer mortality: population study. BMJ. 2014;
348:g3701.
14. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic
Evidence Review Update for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Evidence Review Update No. 74. AHRQ Publication No. 10-05142-
EF-1. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
15. U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S.
Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern
Med. 2009;151:716-726:W-236.
16. Bevers TB, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, et al. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines
in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.
Version I.2014. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_
gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2015.
17. Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-Based Cancer
Research. Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme. http://
www.kreftregisteret.no/en/Cancerprevention/Breast-Cancer-
Screening-Programme/. Accessed March 10, 2015.
18. Public Health England. National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening
Programme. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/. Accessed
March 10, 2015.
19. John EM, Miron A, Gong G, et al. Prevalence of pathogenic BRCA1
mutation carriers in 5 US racial/ethnic groups. JAMA. 2007;298:2869-
2876.
20. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. Average risks of breast and
ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in
case Series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies.
Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:1117-1130.
21. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis
versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of
noncalcifıed breast lesions. Radiology. 2013;266:89-95.
22. Gilbert FJ, Warren RM, Kwan-Lim G, et al. Cancers in BRCA1 and
BRCA2 carriers and in women at high risk for breast cancer: MR imaging
and mammographic features. Radiology. 2009;252:358-368.
23. Robson M. Breast cancer surveillance in women with hereditary risk
asco.org/edbook | 2015 ASCO EDUCATIONAL BOOK 63