Doherty Jennifer A, Jensen Allan, Kelemen Linda E, Pearce Celeste L, Poole Elizabeth, Schildkraut Joellen M, Terry Kathryn L, Tworoger Shelley S, Webb Penelope M, Wentzensen Nicolas
Affiliations of authors: Huntsman Cancer Institute, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT (JAD); Department of Virus, Lifestyle and Genes, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark (AJ); Department of Public Health Sciences and Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC (LEK); Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI (CLP); Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA (CLP); Channing Division of Network Medicine (EP, SST) and Obstetrics and Gynecology Epidemiology Center (KLT), Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA (EP, SST, KLT); Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, CA (JMS); Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Australia (PMW); Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD (NW).
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Oct 1;109(10). doi: 10.1093/jnci/djx144.
With recent ovarian cancer screening studies showing no clinically significant mortality benefit, preventing this disease, identifying high-risk populations, and extending survival remain priorities. However, several challenges are impeding progress in ovarian cancer research. With most studies capturing exposure information from 10 or more years ago, evaluation of how changing patterns of exposures, such as new oral contraceptive formulations and increased intrauterine device use, might influence ovarian cancer risk and survival is difficult. Risk factors for ovarian cancer should be evaluated in the context of tumor histotypes, which have unique molecular features and cells of origin; this is a task that requires large collaborative studies to achieve meaningful sample sizes. Importantly, identification of novel modifiable risk factors, in addition to those currently known to reduce risk (eg, childbearing, tubal ligation, oral contraceptive use), is needed; this is not feasibly implemented at a population level. In this Commentary, we describe important gaps in knowledge and propose new approaches to advance epidemiologic research to improve ovarian cancer prevention and survival, including updated classification of tumors, collection of data on changing and novel exposures, longer follow-up on existing studies, evaluation of diverse populations, development of better risk prediction models, and collaborating prospectively with consortia to develop protocols for new studies that will allow seamless integration for future pooled analyses.
近期的卵巢癌筛查研究表明,在临床上并无显著的死亡率益处,因此预防这种疾病、识别高危人群以及延长生存期仍是首要任务。然而,卵巢癌研究的进展正受到几个挑战的阻碍。由于大多数研究获取的暴露信息来自10多年前,因此很难评估暴露模式的变化(如新的口服避孕药配方和宫内节育器使用增加)如何影响卵巢癌风险和生存期。卵巢癌的风险因素应在肿瘤组织学类型的背景下进行评估,这些组织学类型具有独特的分子特征和起源细胞;这一任务需要大型合作研究才能获得有意义的样本量。重要的是,除了目前已知的降低风险的因素(如生育、输卵管结扎、口服避孕药使用)外,还需要识别新的可改变风险因素;这在人群层面上无法切实实施。在本评论中,我们描述了知识方面的重要差距,并提出了推进流行病学研究以改善卵巢癌预防和生存期的新方法,包括更新肿瘤分类、收集有关变化和新暴露的数据、对现有研究进行更长时间的随访、评估不同人群、开发更好的风险预测模型,以及与联盟进行前瞻性合作以制定新研究的方案,从而实现未来汇总分析的无缝整合。