Hamilton Jada G, Edwards Heather M, Khoury Muin J, Taplin Stephen H
Authors' Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Clinical Research Directorate/CMRP, SAIC-Frederick, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Process of Care Research Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland; and Office of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
Authors' Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Clinical Research Directorate/CMRP, SAIC-Frederick, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick; Epidemiology and Genomics Research Program, Process of Care Research Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland; and Office of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Jun;23(6):909-16. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1016. Epub 2014 Apr 4.
The long-standing medical tradition to "first do no harm" is reflected in population-wide evidence-based recommendations for cancer screening tests that focus primarily on reducing morbidity and mortality. The conventional cancer screening process is predicated on finding early-stage disease that can be treated effectively; yet emerging genetic and genomic testing technologies have moved the target earlier in the disease development process to identify a probabilistic predisposition to disease. Genetic risk information can have varying implications for the health and well-being of patients and their relatives, and has raised important questions about the evaluation and value of risk information. This article explores the paradigms that are being applied to the evaluation of conventional cancer screening tests and emerging genetic and genomic tests of cancer susceptibility, and how these perspectives are shifting and evolving in response to advances in our ability to detect cancer risks. We consider several challenges germane to the evaluation of both categories of tests, including defining benefits and harms in terms of personal and clinical utility, addressing healthcare consumers' information preferences, and managing scientific uncertainty. We encourage research and dialogue aimed at developing a better understanding of the value of all risk information, nongenetic and genetic, to people's lives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(6); 909-16. ©2014 AACR.
“首先不造成伤害”这一由来已久的医学传统体现在针对癌症筛查检测的全人群循证建议中,这些建议主要侧重于降低发病率和死亡率。传统的癌症筛查流程基于发现可有效治疗的早期疾病;然而,新兴的基因和基因组检测技术已将目标提前到疾病发展过程中,以识别疾病的概率性易感性。基因风险信息对患者及其亲属的健康和福祉可能有不同影响,并引发了关于风险信息评估和价值的重要问题。本文探讨了用于评估传统癌症筛查检测以及新兴的癌症易感性基因和基因组检测的范式,以及这些观点如何随着我们检测癌症风险能力的进步而转变和发展。我们考虑了与这两类检测评估相关的几个挑战,包括从个人和临床效用方面定义益处和危害、解决医疗保健消费者的信息偏好以及管理科学不确定性。我们鼓励开展研究和对话,以更好地理解所有风险信息(非基因和基因信息)对人们生活的价值。《癌症流行病学、生物标志物与预防》;23(6);909 - 16。©2014美国癌症研究协会。