User login
sbJUdXtOoY_article_3548874259
oJaNpRiNqh_article_1752652605
KAcYMMMivl_article_0356986230
PJvJOQpYvB_article_9967579067
Gastric Cancer Prevention: New AGA Update Reflects Latest High-Risk Screening and Surveillance Advice
Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.
The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterologists (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).
“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.
“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”
The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.
Gastric Cancer Screening
, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.
High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.
Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.
In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.
As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.
Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis
In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.
Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.
Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.
Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.
Endoscopic Management and Surveillance
If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.
Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.
Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.
In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.
Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.
Patient-Centered Approach
The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.
In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.
“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.
El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.
“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”
The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.
The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterologists (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).
“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.
“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”
The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.
Gastric Cancer Screening
, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.
High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.
Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.
In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.
As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.
Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis
In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.
Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.
Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.
Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.
Endoscopic Management and Surveillance
If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.
Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.
Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.
In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.
Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.
Patient-Centered Approach
The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.
In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.
“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.
El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.
“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”
The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Clinicians can help reduce gastric cancer incidence and mortality in high-risk groups through endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM), according to a new clinical practice update from AGA.
The update supports additional gastric guidance published so far in 2025, including a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions (GPMC) from the American College of Gastroenterologists (ACG) and upper GI endoscopy quality indicators from ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE).
“The synergy of these three publications coming out at the same time helps us to finally establish surveillance of high-risk gastric conditions in practice, as we do in the colon and esophagus,” said Douglas R. Morgan, MD, professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology and director of Global Health programs in gastroenterology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Morgan, who wasn’t involved with the AGA update, served as lead author for the ACG guideline and co-author of the ACG-ASGE quality indicators. He also co-authored the 2024 ACG clinical guideline on treating Helicobacter pylori infection, which has implications for gastric cancer.
“The AGA and ACG updates provide detail, while the QI document is an enforcer with medical, legal, and reimbursement implications,” he said. “We have an alignment of the stars with this overdue move toward concrete surveillance for high-risk lesions in the stomach.”
The clinical practice update was published in Gastroenterology.
Gastric Cancer Screening
, the authors wrote. The top ways to reduce mortality include primary prevention, particularly by eradicating H pylori, and secondary prevention through screening and surveillance.
High-risk groups in the United States should be considered for gastric cancer screening, including first-generation immigrants from high-incidence regions and potentially other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of gastric cancer in a first-degree relative, and those with certain hereditary GI polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes.
Endoscopy remains the best test for screening or surveillance of high-risk groups, the authors wrote, since it allows for direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa, identify any concerning areas of neoplasia, and enable biopsies. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and surveillance decisions.
In particular, clinicians should use a high-definition white light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to see the mucosa. As part of this, clinicians should allow for adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging, where appropriate.
As part of this, clinicians should consider H pylori eradication as an essential adjunct to endoscopic screening, the authors wrote. Opportunistic screening for H pylori should be considered in high-risk groups, and familial-based testing should be considered among adult household members of patients who test positive for H pylori.
Endoscopic Biopsy and Diagnosis
In patients with suspected gastric atrophy — with or without GIM — gastric biopsies should be obtained with a systematic approach, the authors wrote. Clinicians should take a minimum of five biopsies, sampling from the antrum/incisura and corpus.
Endoscopists should work with their pathologists on consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis is diagnosed, the authors wrote. To inform clinical decision-making, this should include documentation of the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM.
Although GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists aren’t familiar with the characteristic visual features, the authors wrote. More training is needed, especially in the US, and although artificial intelligence tools appear promising for detecting early gastric neoplasia, data remain too preliminary to recommend routine use, the authors added.
Since indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnosis on histopathology, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, the authors wrote. Clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in gastric neoplasia.
Endoscopic Management and Surveillance
If an index screening endoscopy doesn’t identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, ongoing screening should be based on a patient’s risk factors and preferences. If the patient has a family history or multiple risk factors, ongoing screening should be considered. However, the optimal screening intervals in these scenarios aren’t well-defined.
Patients with confirmed gastric atrophy should undergo risk stratification, the authors wrote. Those with severe atrophic gastritis or multifocal/incomplete GIM would likely benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors such as family history. Surveillance should be considered every 3 years, though shorter intervals may be advisable for those with multiple risk factors such as severe GIM.
Patients with high-grade dysplasia or early gastric cancer should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging and the intent to cure. Eradicating active H pylori infection is essential — but shouldn’t delay endoscopic intervention, the authors wrote.
In addition, patients with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer should undergo endoscopic surveillance. Although post-ESD surveillance intervals have been suggested in other recent AGA clinical practice updates, additional data are needed, particularly for US recommendations, the authors wrote.
Although type 1 gastric carcinoids in patients with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if less than 1 cm, endoscopists may consider resecting them and should resect lesions between 1and 2 cm. Patients with lesions over 2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk for metastasis.
Patient-Centered Approach
The guideline authors suggested thinking about screening and surveillance on a patient-level basis. For instance, only those who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for gastric cancer and continued surveillance of GPMC, they wrote. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, whether due to life expectancy or other comorbidities, then screening should be stopped.
In addition, to achieve health equity, clinicians should take a personalized approach to assess a patient’s risk for gastric cancer and determine whether to pursue screening and surveillance, the authors wrote. Modifiable risk factors — such as tobacco use, high-salt and processed food diets, and lack of health care — should also be addressed, since most of these risk factors disproportionately affect high-risk patients and represent healthcare disparities, they added.
“This update provides clinicians with a framework for understanding the natural history and epidemiology of gastric polyps, as well as guidance on best practices for the endoscopic detection and classification of gastric polyps, best practices for the endoscopic resection of gastric polyps, and best practices for endoscopic surveillance following resection,” said Hashem El-Serag, MD, professor and chair of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine and director of the Texas Medical Center Digestive Diseases Center in Houston.
El-Serag, who wasn’t involved with the clinical practice update, has researched and published on consensus around the diagnosis and management of GIM.
“Stomach polyps are commonly found during routine endoscopic procedures. They are mostly asymptomatic and incidental, and therefore, clinicians may not be prepared ahead of time on how to deal with them,” he said. “The appropriate management requires proper identification and sampling of the polyp features and the uninvolved gastric mucosa, as well as a clear understanding of the risk factors and prognosis. Recent changes in the epidemiology and endoscopic management of gastric polyps makes this update timely and important.”
The update received no particular funding. The authors disclosed receiving grant support, having consultant relationships with, and serving in advisory roles for numerous pharmaceutical, biomedical, and biotechnology firms. Morgan and El-Serag reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Autoimmune Pancreatitis: What’s Really Behind Those Symptoms
“Defined about 30 years ago, autoimmune pancreatitis [AIP] remains a diagnostic challenge,” said Vinciane Rebours, MD, PhD, professor and head of the Pancreatology and Digestive Oncology Department, Beaujon Hospital in Clichy, France. She spoke at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology 2025, held in Paris. The challenge lies in the fact that AIP includes two distinct clinical entities, neither of which is truly autoimmune. However, much remains unknown, including its natural history, cancer risk, and optimal treatment strategies. However, some aspects are now better understood.
Autoimmune Pancreatitis
These forms differ in their histological characteristics. Type 1 exhibits lymphoplasmacytic infiltration, extensive fibrosis, and IgG4-positive plasma cells. Type 2 presents with granulocytic lesions similar to those in Crohn’s disease.
Type 1 AIP typically affects men aged 50 years or older and is often associated with jaundice, pseudotumor formation, diabetes, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. “It is a systemic disease where lymphoplasmacytic infiltration can affect multiple organs, with the pancreas and lymph nodes most commonly involved,” said Rebours.
A definitive diagnosis of type 1 AIP requires three criteria: Organ involvement, serum IgG4 levels more than twice the normal level, and histological abnormalities on biopsy. If one of these criteria is missing, the diagnosis is considered probable or possible.
Diagnosing type 1 AIP is challenging because it can affect multiple organs, often with few symptoms, leading to significant clinical variability. Type 2 AIP, in contrast, generally affects younger individuals, with no gender preference. It is pathophysiologically distinct and is linked to IBD in 87% of cases. Diagnosis relies on clinical criteria, imaging abnormalities (parenchymal or ductal changes identifiable on scans), response to corticosteroids in symptomatic patients, and the presence of IBD. The absence of IgG4 can also aid in the diagnosis. However, gathering all these elements can be difficult.
Evolving Treatment
Symptomatic patients and those at risk for organ failure, particularly lung and kidney failure, are eligible for induction treatment. This involves the administration of full-dose corticosteroids for 4 weeks, followed by a tapering regimen. Remission was achieved in 99% of type 1 and 92% of type 2 cases. Corticosteroids can also be used as a “trial treatment” to assess corticosteroid sensitivity in patients with type 2 AIP.
The risk for recurrence (in case of nonresponse or recurrence before 12 months posttreatment) is higher in type 1 (one third of cases) than in type 2 (15%). In such cases, immunomodulators, primarily rituximab, are recommended for type 1 AIP. Rituximab can also be used as an induction treatment, either alone or in combination, or as maintenance therapy. Alternatives include mycophenolate mofetil or inebilizumab, which showed an 87% reduction in relapse risk according to data published in 2024.
Maintenance treatment for type 2 AIP is not yet fully standardized. The disease is often managed in a manner similar to that of IBD treatment. Rebours cautioned, “Management cannot stop at the pancreas; it is essential to detect all other paucisymptomatic manifestations through comprehensive annual imaging and biannual biological and functional screenings.”
Monitoring IgG4
Monitoring IgG4 levels is important for therapeutic follow-up but is not the “holy grail” for diagnosis, Rebours acknowledged. For instance, 20% of IgG4-RD cases have normal IgG4 levels, 20% of pancreatic cancers show elevated IgG4 levels, and some patients achieve clinical remission despite persistently abnormal IgG4 levels. Without strong suspicion of type 1 AIP, measuring IgG4 levels is “zero cost-effective.”
This disease, which is associated with the risk for underlying cancer, requires extensive imaging (CT, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound) to differentiate between AIP and cancer. This step is essential to avoid unnecessary surgery on organs affected by IgG4-RD or for treating cancer with corticosteroids.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Defined about 30 years ago, autoimmune pancreatitis [AIP] remains a diagnostic challenge,” said Vinciane Rebours, MD, PhD, professor and head of the Pancreatology and Digestive Oncology Department, Beaujon Hospital in Clichy, France. She spoke at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology 2025, held in Paris. The challenge lies in the fact that AIP includes two distinct clinical entities, neither of which is truly autoimmune. However, much remains unknown, including its natural history, cancer risk, and optimal treatment strategies. However, some aspects are now better understood.
Autoimmune Pancreatitis
These forms differ in their histological characteristics. Type 1 exhibits lymphoplasmacytic infiltration, extensive fibrosis, and IgG4-positive plasma cells. Type 2 presents with granulocytic lesions similar to those in Crohn’s disease.
Type 1 AIP typically affects men aged 50 years or older and is often associated with jaundice, pseudotumor formation, diabetes, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. “It is a systemic disease where lymphoplasmacytic infiltration can affect multiple organs, with the pancreas and lymph nodes most commonly involved,” said Rebours.
A definitive diagnosis of type 1 AIP requires three criteria: Organ involvement, serum IgG4 levels more than twice the normal level, and histological abnormalities on biopsy. If one of these criteria is missing, the diagnosis is considered probable or possible.
Diagnosing type 1 AIP is challenging because it can affect multiple organs, often with few symptoms, leading to significant clinical variability. Type 2 AIP, in contrast, generally affects younger individuals, with no gender preference. It is pathophysiologically distinct and is linked to IBD in 87% of cases. Diagnosis relies on clinical criteria, imaging abnormalities (parenchymal or ductal changes identifiable on scans), response to corticosteroids in symptomatic patients, and the presence of IBD. The absence of IgG4 can also aid in the diagnosis. However, gathering all these elements can be difficult.
Evolving Treatment
Symptomatic patients and those at risk for organ failure, particularly lung and kidney failure, are eligible for induction treatment. This involves the administration of full-dose corticosteroids for 4 weeks, followed by a tapering regimen. Remission was achieved in 99% of type 1 and 92% of type 2 cases. Corticosteroids can also be used as a “trial treatment” to assess corticosteroid sensitivity in patients with type 2 AIP.
The risk for recurrence (in case of nonresponse or recurrence before 12 months posttreatment) is higher in type 1 (one third of cases) than in type 2 (15%). In such cases, immunomodulators, primarily rituximab, are recommended for type 1 AIP. Rituximab can also be used as an induction treatment, either alone or in combination, or as maintenance therapy. Alternatives include mycophenolate mofetil or inebilizumab, which showed an 87% reduction in relapse risk according to data published in 2024.
Maintenance treatment for type 2 AIP is not yet fully standardized. The disease is often managed in a manner similar to that of IBD treatment. Rebours cautioned, “Management cannot stop at the pancreas; it is essential to detect all other paucisymptomatic manifestations through comprehensive annual imaging and biannual biological and functional screenings.”
Monitoring IgG4
Monitoring IgG4 levels is important for therapeutic follow-up but is not the “holy grail” for diagnosis, Rebours acknowledged. For instance, 20% of IgG4-RD cases have normal IgG4 levels, 20% of pancreatic cancers show elevated IgG4 levels, and some patients achieve clinical remission despite persistently abnormal IgG4 levels. Without strong suspicion of type 1 AIP, measuring IgG4 levels is “zero cost-effective.”
This disease, which is associated with the risk for underlying cancer, requires extensive imaging (CT, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound) to differentiate between AIP and cancer. This step is essential to avoid unnecessary surgery on organs affected by IgG4-RD or for treating cancer with corticosteroids.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Defined about 30 years ago, autoimmune pancreatitis [AIP] remains a diagnostic challenge,” said Vinciane Rebours, MD, PhD, professor and head of the Pancreatology and Digestive Oncology Department, Beaujon Hospital in Clichy, France. She spoke at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology 2025, held in Paris. The challenge lies in the fact that AIP includes two distinct clinical entities, neither of which is truly autoimmune. However, much remains unknown, including its natural history, cancer risk, and optimal treatment strategies. However, some aspects are now better understood.
Autoimmune Pancreatitis
These forms differ in their histological characteristics. Type 1 exhibits lymphoplasmacytic infiltration, extensive fibrosis, and IgG4-positive plasma cells. Type 2 presents with granulocytic lesions similar to those in Crohn’s disease.
Type 1 AIP typically affects men aged 50 years or older and is often associated with jaundice, pseudotumor formation, diabetes, and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. “It is a systemic disease where lymphoplasmacytic infiltration can affect multiple organs, with the pancreas and lymph nodes most commonly involved,” said Rebours.
A definitive diagnosis of type 1 AIP requires three criteria: Organ involvement, serum IgG4 levels more than twice the normal level, and histological abnormalities on biopsy. If one of these criteria is missing, the diagnosis is considered probable or possible.
Diagnosing type 1 AIP is challenging because it can affect multiple organs, often with few symptoms, leading to significant clinical variability. Type 2 AIP, in contrast, generally affects younger individuals, with no gender preference. It is pathophysiologically distinct and is linked to IBD in 87% of cases. Diagnosis relies on clinical criteria, imaging abnormalities (parenchymal or ductal changes identifiable on scans), response to corticosteroids in symptomatic patients, and the presence of IBD. The absence of IgG4 can also aid in the diagnosis. However, gathering all these elements can be difficult.
Evolving Treatment
Symptomatic patients and those at risk for organ failure, particularly lung and kidney failure, are eligible for induction treatment. This involves the administration of full-dose corticosteroids for 4 weeks, followed by a tapering regimen. Remission was achieved in 99% of type 1 and 92% of type 2 cases. Corticosteroids can also be used as a “trial treatment” to assess corticosteroid sensitivity in patients with type 2 AIP.
The risk for recurrence (in case of nonresponse or recurrence before 12 months posttreatment) is higher in type 1 (one third of cases) than in type 2 (15%). In such cases, immunomodulators, primarily rituximab, are recommended for type 1 AIP. Rituximab can also be used as an induction treatment, either alone or in combination, or as maintenance therapy. Alternatives include mycophenolate mofetil or inebilizumab, which showed an 87% reduction in relapse risk according to data published in 2024.
Maintenance treatment for type 2 AIP is not yet fully standardized. The disease is often managed in a manner similar to that of IBD treatment. Rebours cautioned, “Management cannot stop at the pancreas; it is essential to detect all other paucisymptomatic manifestations through comprehensive annual imaging and biannual biological and functional screenings.”
Monitoring IgG4
Monitoring IgG4 levels is important for therapeutic follow-up but is not the “holy grail” for diagnosis, Rebours acknowledged. For instance, 20% of IgG4-RD cases have normal IgG4 levels, 20% of pancreatic cancers show elevated IgG4 levels, and some patients achieve clinical remission despite persistently abnormal IgG4 levels. Without strong suspicion of type 1 AIP, measuring IgG4 levels is “zero cost-effective.”
This disease, which is associated with the risk for underlying cancer, requires extensive imaging (CT, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound) to differentiate between AIP and cancer. This step is essential to avoid unnecessary surgery on organs affected by IgG4-RD or for treating cancer with corticosteroids.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Fecal Product Expected to Enhance Microbiome Research
According to AGA’s Center for Gut Microbiome Research & Education, this critical resource will help advance the utility and reproducibility of microbiome-based diagnostics — “which still remain relatively meaningless clinically, although patients continue to buy direct-to-consumer tests, and a standard reference material will mean there’s a better way to ensure quality control and accuracy.”
Though not a therapeutic, Human Fecal Material RM is expected to speed up gastrointestinal (GI) therapeutics since many microbiome-based drugs are inspired by fecal transplants with human stool as the developmental starting point. A standardized reference material will be an important resource as industry develops and tests new drugs. It can be purchased online at the NIST Store (shop.nist.gov).
The product consists of eight frozen vials of exhaustively studied human feces suspended in aqueous solution. Available are more than 25 pages of data identifying the key microbes and biomolecules in the material. Scientists, including those working at biopharmaceutical and biotech companies, can use this material to further their research and develop new drugs that target the microbiome, including treatments that contain living bacteria.
Development
According to NIST, the stool material is “the most precisely measured, scientifically analyzed, and richly characterized human fecal standard ever produced.
“The project ran for about 6 years from start to finish, the last 2 for manufacturing, characterization, and writing,” said NIST molecular geneticist Scott A. Jackson, PhD, who helped develop the product. “We hope our reference material will lay the foundation for gut microbiome research to thrive and reach its full potential.”
As founder of NIST’s Complex Microbial Systems Group, Jackson is leading international efforts to improve microbiome and metagenomic measurements by organizing inter-lab studies and refining reference materials and methods.
The project collected stool from two cohorts of donors, ie, vegetarians and omnivores, with each cohort comprising four to six donors. Material from each cohort was pooled and homogenized before being aliquoted into 5000 vials per cohort. About 300 tubes from each cohort were picked, and aliquots then underwent multiomic analyses.
Offering his perspective on the new product, Sudhir K. Dutta, MBBS, associate professor in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said, “This tool will be 100% useful for microbiome research.”
And according to Lori Holtz, MD, MSPH, professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, the material will aid microbiome research by allowing interpretability and repeatability across studies. “Microbiome research is a relatively new field, and protocols differ from group to group and lab to lab, so it’s been difficult to compare results across studies,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “A standard stool product will allow for greater comparability in preclinical studies and later clinical trials testing interventions to alter the microbiome.”
The NIST developers are looking forward to reaction from the GI research community. “Over the last several years, we’ve released smaller pilot batches of material to smaller groups of stakeholders,” said Jackson. “We’ve used the feedback on these earlier batches to inform the manufacturing and characterization of the final batch that was released in March, but we don’t yet have any feedback yet on the current material.”
Jackson, Dutta, and Holtz disclosed having no relevant competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
According to AGA’s Center for Gut Microbiome Research & Education, this critical resource will help advance the utility and reproducibility of microbiome-based diagnostics — “which still remain relatively meaningless clinically, although patients continue to buy direct-to-consumer tests, and a standard reference material will mean there’s a better way to ensure quality control and accuracy.”
Though not a therapeutic, Human Fecal Material RM is expected to speed up gastrointestinal (GI) therapeutics since many microbiome-based drugs are inspired by fecal transplants with human stool as the developmental starting point. A standardized reference material will be an important resource as industry develops and tests new drugs. It can be purchased online at the NIST Store (shop.nist.gov).
The product consists of eight frozen vials of exhaustively studied human feces suspended in aqueous solution. Available are more than 25 pages of data identifying the key microbes and biomolecules in the material. Scientists, including those working at biopharmaceutical and biotech companies, can use this material to further their research and develop new drugs that target the microbiome, including treatments that contain living bacteria.
Development
According to NIST, the stool material is “the most precisely measured, scientifically analyzed, and richly characterized human fecal standard ever produced.
“The project ran for about 6 years from start to finish, the last 2 for manufacturing, characterization, and writing,” said NIST molecular geneticist Scott A. Jackson, PhD, who helped develop the product. “We hope our reference material will lay the foundation for gut microbiome research to thrive and reach its full potential.”
As founder of NIST’s Complex Microbial Systems Group, Jackson is leading international efforts to improve microbiome and metagenomic measurements by organizing inter-lab studies and refining reference materials and methods.
The project collected stool from two cohorts of donors, ie, vegetarians and omnivores, with each cohort comprising four to six donors. Material from each cohort was pooled and homogenized before being aliquoted into 5000 vials per cohort. About 300 tubes from each cohort were picked, and aliquots then underwent multiomic analyses.
Offering his perspective on the new product, Sudhir K. Dutta, MBBS, associate professor in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said, “This tool will be 100% useful for microbiome research.”
And according to Lori Holtz, MD, MSPH, professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, the material will aid microbiome research by allowing interpretability and repeatability across studies. “Microbiome research is a relatively new field, and protocols differ from group to group and lab to lab, so it’s been difficult to compare results across studies,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “A standard stool product will allow for greater comparability in preclinical studies and later clinical trials testing interventions to alter the microbiome.”
The NIST developers are looking forward to reaction from the GI research community. “Over the last several years, we’ve released smaller pilot batches of material to smaller groups of stakeholders,” said Jackson. “We’ve used the feedback on these earlier batches to inform the manufacturing and characterization of the final batch that was released in March, but we don’t yet have any feedback yet on the current material.”
Jackson, Dutta, and Holtz disclosed having no relevant competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
According to AGA’s Center for Gut Microbiome Research & Education, this critical resource will help advance the utility and reproducibility of microbiome-based diagnostics — “which still remain relatively meaningless clinically, although patients continue to buy direct-to-consumer tests, and a standard reference material will mean there’s a better way to ensure quality control and accuracy.”
Though not a therapeutic, Human Fecal Material RM is expected to speed up gastrointestinal (GI) therapeutics since many microbiome-based drugs are inspired by fecal transplants with human stool as the developmental starting point. A standardized reference material will be an important resource as industry develops and tests new drugs. It can be purchased online at the NIST Store (shop.nist.gov).
The product consists of eight frozen vials of exhaustively studied human feces suspended in aqueous solution. Available are more than 25 pages of data identifying the key microbes and biomolecules in the material. Scientists, including those working at biopharmaceutical and biotech companies, can use this material to further their research and develop new drugs that target the microbiome, including treatments that contain living bacteria.
Development
According to NIST, the stool material is “the most precisely measured, scientifically analyzed, and richly characterized human fecal standard ever produced.
“The project ran for about 6 years from start to finish, the last 2 for manufacturing, characterization, and writing,” said NIST molecular geneticist Scott A. Jackson, PhD, who helped develop the product. “We hope our reference material will lay the foundation for gut microbiome research to thrive and reach its full potential.”
As founder of NIST’s Complex Microbial Systems Group, Jackson is leading international efforts to improve microbiome and metagenomic measurements by organizing inter-lab studies and refining reference materials and methods.
The project collected stool from two cohorts of donors, ie, vegetarians and omnivores, with each cohort comprising four to six donors. Material from each cohort was pooled and homogenized before being aliquoted into 5000 vials per cohort. About 300 tubes from each cohort were picked, and aliquots then underwent multiomic analyses.
Offering his perspective on the new product, Sudhir K. Dutta, MBBS, associate professor in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said, “This tool will be 100% useful for microbiome research.”
And according to Lori Holtz, MD, MSPH, professor of pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, the material will aid microbiome research by allowing interpretability and repeatability across studies. “Microbiome research is a relatively new field, and protocols differ from group to group and lab to lab, so it’s been difficult to compare results across studies,” she told GI & Hepatology News. “A standard stool product will allow for greater comparability in preclinical studies and later clinical trials testing interventions to alter the microbiome.”
The NIST developers are looking forward to reaction from the GI research community. “Over the last several years, we’ve released smaller pilot batches of material to smaller groups of stakeholders,” said Jackson. “We’ve used the feedback on these earlier batches to inform the manufacturing and characterization of the final batch that was released in March, but we don’t yet have any feedback yet on the current material.”
Jackson, Dutta, and Holtz disclosed having no relevant competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Veterans and Nonveterans Show Similar Mammogram Rates
TOPLINE: A national survey of 8996 females reveals comparable mammography screening rates between those who identify as veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers analyzed data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a cross-sectional national survey tracking health information.
Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years without history of breast cancer were included in the analysis.
Analysis evaluated the association between screening and veteran status through logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders.
Survey procedures accounted for complex sampling design to obtain valid estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population.
TAKEAWAY:
Analysis included 8996 female survey respondents, including 169 veterans (1.9%) and 320 (3.2%) reported having military health coverage.
Mammography screening rates within the last year were comparable between veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).
Veteran status showed no significant association with differences in mammography screening percentages (P = .96).
Among insured participants, military health insurance demonstrated no significant association with mammography screening percentages (P = .13).
The authors suggest that radiology practices should design proactive outreach strategies to address the needs of the growing number of female veterans who may face increased breast cancer risk due to military environmental exposures.
IN PRACTICE: “Although the results from our study demonstrate comparable mammography screening percentages, veterans may face additional risk factors for breast cancer due to occupational,” the authors argue.
SOURCE: This summary is based on a preprint published online in the Journal of the American College of Radiology: Milton A, Miles R, Gettle LM, Van Geertruyden P, Narayan AK. Utilization of Mammography Screening in Female Veterans: Cross-Sectional Survey Results from the National Health Interview Survey. J Am Coll Radiol. Published online April 24, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.017
LIMITATIONS: The study relied on self-reported adherence data, which could overestimate screening percentages. Data collection occurred prior to updated United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommending routine mammography screening for women starting at age 40 years every 2 years. The relatively small number of female veteran respondents limited the precision of population estimates. Additionally, the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been associated with reduced mammographic screening, particularly in medically underserved populations.
DISCLOSURES: Anand Narayan disclosed receiving financial support from Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and National Academy of Medicine. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The remaining authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: A national survey of 8996 females reveals comparable mammography screening rates between those who identify as veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers analyzed data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a cross-sectional national survey tracking health information.
Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years without history of breast cancer were included in the analysis.
Analysis evaluated the association between screening and veteran status through logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders.
Survey procedures accounted for complex sampling design to obtain valid estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population.
TAKEAWAY:
Analysis included 8996 female survey respondents, including 169 veterans (1.9%) and 320 (3.2%) reported having military health coverage.
Mammography screening rates within the last year were comparable between veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).
Veteran status showed no significant association with differences in mammography screening percentages (P = .96).
Among insured participants, military health insurance demonstrated no significant association with mammography screening percentages (P = .13).
The authors suggest that radiology practices should design proactive outreach strategies to address the needs of the growing number of female veterans who may face increased breast cancer risk due to military environmental exposures.
IN PRACTICE: “Although the results from our study demonstrate comparable mammography screening percentages, veterans may face additional risk factors for breast cancer due to occupational,” the authors argue.
SOURCE: This summary is based on a preprint published online in the Journal of the American College of Radiology: Milton A, Miles R, Gettle LM, Van Geertruyden P, Narayan AK. Utilization of Mammography Screening in Female Veterans: Cross-Sectional Survey Results from the National Health Interview Survey. J Am Coll Radiol. Published online April 24, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.017
LIMITATIONS: The study relied on self-reported adherence data, which could overestimate screening percentages. Data collection occurred prior to updated United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommending routine mammography screening for women starting at age 40 years every 2 years. The relatively small number of female veteran respondents limited the precision of population estimates. Additionally, the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been associated with reduced mammographic screening, particularly in medically underserved populations.
DISCLOSURES: Anand Narayan disclosed receiving financial support from Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and National Academy of Medicine. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The remaining authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
TOPLINE: A national survey of 8996 females reveals comparable mammography screening rates between those who identify as veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers analyzed data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a cross-sectional national survey tracking health information.
Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years without history of breast cancer were included in the analysis.
Analysis evaluated the association between screening and veteran status through logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders.
Survey procedures accounted for complex sampling design to obtain valid estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population.
TAKEAWAY:
Analysis included 8996 female survey respondents, including 169 veterans (1.9%) and 320 (3.2%) reported having military health coverage.
Mammography screening rates within the last year were comparable between veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).
Veteran status showed no significant association with differences in mammography screening percentages (P = .96).
Among insured participants, military health insurance demonstrated no significant association with mammography screening percentages (P = .13).
The authors suggest that radiology practices should design proactive outreach strategies to address the needs of the growing number of female veterans who may face increased breast cancer risk due to military environmental exposures.
IN PRACTICE: “Although the results from our study demonstrate comparable mammography screening percentages, veterans may face additional risk factors for breast cancer due to occupational,” the authors argue.
SOURCE: This summary is based on a preprint published online in the Journal of the American College of Radiology: Milton A, Miles R, Gettle LM, Van Geertruyden P, Narayan AK. Utilization of Mammography Screening in Female Veterans: Cross-Sectional Survey Results from the National Health Interview Survey. J Am Coll Radiol. Published online April 24, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.017
LIMITATIONS: The study relied on self-reported adherence data, which could overestimate screening percentages. Data collection occurred prior to updated United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommending routine mammography screening for women starting at age 40 years every 2 years. The relatively small number of female veteran respondents limited the precision of population estimates. Additionally, the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been associated with reduced mammographic screening, particularly in medically underserved populations.
DISCLOSURES: Anand Narayan disclosed receiving financial support from Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and National Academy of Medicine. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The remaining authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
UK Funds AI Blood Test for Early Cancer Detection
A clinical trial of a promising blood test that could offer faster and more accurate diagnoses for common cancers has received funding from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
The miONCO-Dx test detects cancer at an early stage by analysing microRNA expression in blood.
It uses artificial intelligence to identify the presence and origin of the disease.
The test was developed by Xgenera, a University of Southampton spinout, in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Initial analysis of data from more than 20,000 patients showed that the test detected 12 of the most common and lethal cancers at an early stage and with over 99% accuracy.
Bowel Cancer Among Key Targets
Bowel cancer, the fourth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, is a principal target for the test.
Around 44,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year. At stage 1, approximately 90% of people survive for 5 years or more, but this drops to around 10% at stage 4.
Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said in a press release, “The key to surviving cancer is catching it as early as possible, so this government is taking the urgent action needed to make sure that happens.”
£2.4 Million Awarded for Clinical Trial
The DHSC has awarded Xgenera £2.4 million to advance development of the test, which has now been refined into a cheaper, faster, and more scalable version.
The funding will support a clinical trial involving 8000 patients. The DHSC described this as “a formal and significant step towards bringing the test closer to patients by ensuring it is fit for purpose in the NHS.”
The trial will be run by Cancer Research UK Southampton Clinical Trials Unit.
Potential for NHS Use
Dr Victoria Goss, head of early diagnosis and translational research at the trials unit, said in a press release, “A reliable test such as this could have the potential to see a major shift in cancer screening, making it easier and cheaper to provide on the NHS, cutting health inequalities, and ultimately reducing the number of people who die from the disease.”
Xgenera co-founder Dr Andy Shapanis, a research fellow at the University of Southampton, said that the new study would evaluate the useability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of the test for use within the NHS in future.
“The hope is that if the test is shown to be successful in the early diagnosis of the 12 cancers we have currently identified biomarkers for, then it could be expanded to look at over 50 other cancers in the future,” he said.
Comparison With Other Tests
The miONCO-Dx test follows other attempts at multicancer early detection, such as the Galleri test from Grail, which is already being trialled in the NHS.
Galleri screens for altered DNA methylation patterns in blood and claims to detect more than 50 types of cancer. It raised hopes for earlier diagnosis, less invasive treatment, and potential cost savings.
However, critics have raised concerns about low detection rates in early-stage cancers, high false-positive rates, imprecise cancer origin analysis, cost, and unproven mortality gains. Questions have also been expressed about possible political influence in its selection for NHS trials.
A Broader Screening Platform
Xgenera co-founder Professor Paul Skipp, director of the Centre for Proteomic Research at the University of Southampton, said earlier this year that the miONCO-Dx test was “a real game-changer.”
The test can detect lung, breast, prostate, pancreatic, colorectal, ovarian, liver, brain, oesophageal, bladder, and gastric cancer and bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. It works by identifying imbalances in microRNAs, a class of small noncoding RNAs with functions in posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression, influencing cellular activities including cell growth, differentiation, development, and apoptosis.
The presence of microRNA imbalances can be identified from just 10-15 drops of blood, across all stages of tumour growth.
In comparison, according to Skipp, screening is only available currently for three types of cancer in the UK, and each test targets a single type.
Xgenera has also received external investment from the innovation investment companies Qantx, Empirical Ventures, and Ascension Ventures to further develop the test.
Dr Sheena Meredith is an established medical writer, editor, and consultant in healthcare communications, with extensive experience writing for medical professionals and the general public. She is qualified in medicine and in law and medical ethics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A clinical trial of a promising blood test that could offer faster and more accurate diagnoses for common cancers has received funding from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
The miONCO-Dx test detects cancer at an early stage by analysing microRNA expression in blood.
It uses artificial intelligence to identify the presence and origin of the disease.
The test was developed by Xgenera, a University of Southampton spinout, in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Initial analysis of data from more than 20,000 patients showed that the test detected 12 of the most common and lethal cancers at an early stage and with over 99% accuracy.
Bowel Cancer Among Key Targets
Bowel cancer, the fourth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, is a principal target for the test.
Around 44,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year. At stage 1, approximately 90% of people survive for 5 years or more, but this drops to around 10% at stage 4.
Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said in a press release, “The key to surviving cancer is catching it as early as possible, so this government is taking the urgent action needed to make sure that happens.”
£2.4 Million Awarded for Clinical Trial
The DHSC has awarded Xgenera £2.4 million to advance development of the test, which has now been refined into a cheaper, faster, and more scalable version.
The funding will support a clinical trial involving 8000 patients. The DHSC described this as “a formal and significant step towards bringing the test closer to patients by ensuring it is fit for purpose in the NHS.”
The trial will be run by Cancer Research UK Southampton Clinical Trials Unit.
Potential for NHS Use
Dr Victoria Goss, head of early diagnosis and translational research at the trials unit, said in a press release, “A reliable test such as this could have the potential to see a major shift in cancer screening, making it easier and cheaper to provide on the NHS, cutting health inequalities, and ultimately reducing the number of people who die from the disease.”
Xgenera co-founder Dr Andy Shapanis, a research fellow at the University of Southampton, said that the new study would evaluate the useability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of the test for use within the NHS in future.
“The hope is that if the test is shown to be successful in the early diagnosis of the 12 cancers we have currently identified biomarkers for, then it could be expanded to look at over 50 other cancers in the future,” he said.
Comparison With Other Tests
The miONCO-Dx test follows other attempts at multicancer early detection, such as the Galleri test from Grail, which is already being trialled in the NHS.
Galleri screens for altered DNA methylation patterns in blood and claims to detect more than 50 types of cancer. It raised hopes for earlier diagnosis, less invasive treatment, and potential cost savings.
However, critics have raised concerns about low detection rates in early-stage cancers, high false-positive rates, imprecise cancer origin analysis, cost, and unproven mortality gains. Questions have also been expressed about possible political influence in its selection for NHS trials.
A Broader Screening Platform
Xgenera co-founder Professor Paul Skipp, director of the Centre for Proteomic Research at the University of Southampton, said earlier this year that the miONCO-Dx test was “a real game-changer.”
The test can detect lung, breast, prostate, pancreatic, colorectal, ovarian, liver, brain, oesophageal, bladder, and gastric cancer and bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. It works by identifying imbalances in microRNAs, a class of small noncoding RNAs with functions in posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression, influencing cellular activities including cell growth, differentiation, development, and apoptosis.
The presence of microRNA imbalances can be identified from just 10-15 drops of blood, across all stages of tumour growth.
In comparison, according to Skipp, screening is only available currently for three types of cancer in the UK, and each test targets a single type.
Xgenera has also received external investment from the innovation investment companies Qantx, Empirical Ventures, and Ascension Ventures to further develop the test.
Dr Sheena Meredith is an established medical writer, editor, and consultant in healthcare communications, with extensive experience writing for medical professionals and the general public. She is qualified in medicine and in law and medical ethics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A clinical trial of a promising blood test that could offer faster and more accurate diagnoses for common cancers has received funding from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).
The miONCO-Dx test detects cancer at an early stage by analysing microRNA expression in blood.
It uses artificial intelligence to identify the presence and origin of the disease.
The test was developed by Xgenera, a University of Southampton spinout, in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
Initial analysis of data from more than 20,000 patients showed that the test detected 12 of the most common and lethal cancers at an early stage and with over 99% accuracy.
Bowel Cancer Among Key Targets
Bowel cancer, the fourth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, is a principal target for the test.
Around 44,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year. At stage 1, approximately 90% of people survive for 5 years or more, but this drops to around 10% at stage 4.
Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said in a press release, “The key to surviving cancer is catching it as early as possible, so this government is taking the urgent action needed to make sure that happens.”
£2.4 Million Awarded for Clinical Trial
The DHSC has awarded Xgenera £2.4 million to advance development of the test, which has now been refined into a cheaper, faster, and more scalable version.
The funding will support a clinical trial involving 8000 patients. The DHSC described this as “a formal and significant step towards bringing the test closer to patients by ensuring it is fit for purpose in the NHS.”
The trial will be run by Cancer Research UK Southampton Clinical Trials Unit.
Potential for NHS Use
Dr Victoria Goss, head of early diagnosis and translational research at the trials unit, said in a press release, “A reliable test such as this could have the potential to see a major shift in cancer screening, making it easier and cheaper to provide on the NHS, cutting health inequalities, and ultimately reducing the number of people who die from the disease.”
Xgenera co-founder Dr Andy Shapanis, a research fellow at the University of Southampton, said that the new study would evaluate the useability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of the test for use within the NHS in future.
“The hope is that if the test is shown to be successful in the early diagnosis of the 12 cancers we have currently identified biomarkers for, then it could be expanded to look at over 50 other cancers in the future,” he said.
Comparison With Other Tests
The miONCO-Dx test follows other attempts at multicancer early detection, such as the Galleri test from Grail, which is already being trialled in the NHS.
Galleri screens for altered DNA methylation patterns in blood and claims to detect more than 50 types of cancer. It raised hopes for earlier diagnosis, less invasive treatment, and potential cost savings.
However, critics have raised concerns about low detection rates in early-stage cancers, high false-positive rates, imprecise cancer origin analysis, cost, and unproven mortality gains. Questions have also been expressed about possible political influence in its selection for NHS trials.
A Broader Screening Platform
Xgenera co-founder Professor Paul Skipp, director of the Centre for Proteomic Research at the University of Southampton, said earlier this year that the miONCO-Dx test was “a real game-changer.”
The test can detect lung, breast, prostate, pancreatic, colorectal, ovarian, liver, brain, oesophageal, bladder, and gastric cancer and bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. It works by identifying imbalances in microRNAs, a class of small noncoding RNAs with functions in posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression, influencing cellular activities including cell growth, differentiation, development, and apoptosis.
The presence of microRNA imbalances can be identified from just 10-15 drops of blood, across all stages of tumour growth.
In comparison, according to Skipp, screening is only available currently for three types of cancer in the UK, and each test targets a single type.
Xgenera has also received external investment from the innovation investment companies Qantx, Empirical Ventures, and Ascension Ventures to further develop the test.
Dr Sheena Meredith is an established medical writer, editor, and consultant in healthcare communications, with extensive experience writing for medical professionals and the general public. She is qualified in medicine and in law and medical ethics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Can a Polygenic Risk Score Turn the Tide on Prostate Cancer Screening?
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.
The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.
“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.
Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.
“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.
An Adjunct to Screening?
The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.
The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.
Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.
Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.
Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.
When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.
Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway.
However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.
Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).
“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.
However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.
Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”
“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.
The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.
The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.
“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned.
“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.
In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”
The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.