Peter Naredi

Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission

We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is providing new insights into human biology and cancer. In this era of big data, we are amassing large amounts of information that is transforming how we approach cancer treatment and prevention. Enactment of the Cancer Moonshot within the 21st Century Cures Act in the USA arrived at a propitious moment in the advancement of knowledge, providing nearly US

Circulating carnosine dipeptidase 1 associates with weight loss and poor prognosis in gastrointestinal cancer.

2 billion of funding for cancer research and precision medicine. In 2016, the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) set out a roadmap of recommendations designed to exploit new advances in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Those recommendations provided a high-level view of how to accelerate the conversion of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. The US National Cancer Institute is already implementing some of those recommendations. As experts in the priority areas identified by the BRP, we bolster those recommendations to implement this important scientific roadmap. In this Commission, we examine the BRP recommendations in greater detail and expand the discussion to include additional priority areas, including surgical oncology, radiation oncology, imaging, health systems and health disparities, regulation and financing, population science, and oncopolicy. We prioritise areas of research in the USA that we believe would accelerate efforts to benefit patients with cancer. Finally, we hope the recommendations in this report will facilitate new international collaborations to further enhance global efforts in cancer control.

Increased consultation frequency in primary care, a risk marker for cancer: a case–control study

Background Cancer cachexia (CC) is linked to poor prognosis. Although the mechanisms promoting this condition are not known, several circulating proteins have been proposed to contribute. We analyzed the plasma proteome in cancer subjects in order to identify factors associated with cachexia. Design/Subjects Plasma was obtained from a screening cohort of 59 patients, newly diagnosed with suspected gastrointestinal cancer, with (n = 32) or without (n = 27) cachexia. Samples were subjected to proteomic profiling using 760 antibodies (targeting 698 individual proteins) from the Human Protein Atlas project. The main findings were validated in a cohort of 93 patients with verified and advanced pancreas cancer. Results Only six proteins displayed differential plasma levels in the screening cohort. Among these, Carnosine Dipeptidase 1 (CNDP1) was confirmed by sandwich immunoassay to be lower in CC (p = 0.008). In both cohorts, low CNDP1 levels were associated with markers of poor prognosis including weight loss, malnutrition, lipid breakdown, low circulating albumin/IGF1 levels and poor quality of life. Eleven of the subjects in the discovery cohort were finally diagnosed with non-malignant disease but omitting these subjects from the analyses did not have any major influence on the results. Conclusions In gastrointestinal cancer, reduced plasma levels of CNDP1 associate with signs of catabolism and poor outcome. These results, together with recently published data demonstrating lower circulating CNDP1 in subjects with glioblastoma and metastatic prostate cancer, suggest that CNDP1 may constitute a marker of aggressive cancer and CC.

The European Cancer Patient’s Bill of Rights, update and implementation 2016

Abstract Objective: To identify early diagnostic profiles such as diagnostic codes and consultation patterns of cancer patients in primary care one year prior to cancer diagnosis. Design: Total population-based case–control study. Setting and subjects: 4562 cancer patients and 17,979 controls matched by age, sex, and primary care unit. Data were collected from the Swedish Cancer Register and the Regional Healthcare Database. Method: We identified cancer patients in the Västra Götaland Region of Sweden diagnosed in 2011 with prostate, breast, colorectal, lung, gynaecological, and skin cancers including malignant melanoma. We studied the symptoms and diagnoses identified by diagnostic codes during a diagnostic interval of 12 months before the cancer diagnosis. Main outcome measures: Consultation frequency, symptom density by cancer type, prevalence and odds ratios (OR) for the diagnostic codes in the cancer population as a whole. Results: The diagnostic codes with the highest OR were unspecified lump in breast, neoplasm of uncertain behaviour, and abnormal serum enzyme levels. The codes with the highest prevalence were hyperplasia of prostate, other skin changes and abdominal and pelvic pain. The frequency of diagnostic codes and consultations in primary care rose in tandem 50 days before diagnosis for breast and gynaecological cancer, 60 days for malignant melanoma and skin cancer, 80 days for prostate cancer and 100 days for colorectal and lung cancer. Conclusion: Eighty-seven percent of patients with the most common cancers consulted a general practitioner (GP) a year before their diagnosis. An increase in consultation frequency and presentation of any symptom should raise the GP’s suspicion of cancer. Key Points Knowledge about the prevalence of early symptoms and other clinical signs in cancer patients in primary care remains insufficient. Eighty-seven percent of the patients with the seven most common cancers consulted a general practitioner 12 months prior to cancer diagnosis. Both the frequency of consultation and the number of symptoms and diseases expressed in diagnostic codes rose in tandem 50–100 days before the cancer diagnosis. Unless it is caused by a previously known disease, an increased consultation rate for any symptom should result in a swift investigation or referral from primary care to confirm or exclude cancer.

Asna1/TRC40 Controls β-Cell Function and Endoplasmic Reticulum Homeostasis by Ensuring Retrograde Transport.

Abstract In this implementation phase of the European Cancer Patient’s Bill of Rights (BoR), we confirm the following three patient-centred principles that underpin this initiative: The right of every European citizen to receive the most accurate information and to be proactively involved in his/her care. The right of every European citizen to optimal and timely access to a diagnosis and to appropriate specialised care, underpinned by research and innovation. The right of every European citizen to receive care in health systems that ensure the best possible cancer prevention, the earliest possible diagnosis of their cancer, improved outcomes, patient rehabilitation, best quality of life and affordable health care. The key aspects of working towards implementing the BoR are: Agree our high-level goal. The vision of 70% long-term survival for patients with cancer in 2035, promoting cancer prevention and cancer control and the associated progress in ensuring good patient experience and quality of life. Establish the major mechanisms to underpin its delivery. (1) The systematic and rigorous sharing of best practice between and across European cancer healthcare systems and (2) the active promotion of Research and Innovation focused on improving outcomes; (3) Improving access to new and established cancer care by sharing best practice in the development, approval, procurement and reimbursement of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments. Work with other organisations to bring into being a Europe based centre that will (1) systematically identify, evaluate and validate and disseminate best practice in cancer management for the different countries and regions and (2) promote Research and Innovation and its translation to maximise its impact to improve outcomes.

Identifying critical steps towards improved access to innovation in cancer care: a European CanCer Organisation position paper

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is characterized by insulin resistance and β-cell failure. Insulin resistance per se, however, does not provoke overt diabetes as long as compensatory β-cell function is maintained. The increased demand for insulin stresses the β-cell endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and secretory pathway, and ER stress is associated with β-cell failure in T2D. The tail recognition complex (TRC) pathway, including Asna1/TRC40, is implicated in the maintenance of endomembrane trafficking and ER homeostasis. To gain insight into the role of Asna1/TRC40 in maintaining endomembrane homeostasis and β-cell function, we inactivated Asna1 in β-cells of mice. We show that Asna1β−/− mice develop hypoinsulinemia, impaired insulin secretion, and glucose intolerance that rapidly progresses to overt diabetes. Loss of Asna1 function leads to perturbed plasma membrane-to-trans Golgi network and Golgi-to-ER retrograde transport as well as to ER stress in β-cells. Of note, pharmacological inhibition of retrograde transport in isolated islets and insulinoma cells mimicked the phenotype of Asna1β−/− β-cells and resulted in reduced insulin content and ER stress. These data support a model where Asna1 ensures retrograde transport and, hence, ER and insulin homeostasis in β-cells.

Diagnostic profile characteristics of cancer patients with frequent consultations in primary care before diagnosis: a case-control study

In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care.

Centers of excellence or excellence networks: The surgical challenge and quality issues in rare cancers

Background Many patients with common cancers are late diagnosed. Objectives Identify consultation profiles and clinical features in patients with the seven most common cancers, who had consulted a general practitioner (GP) frequently before their cancer diagnosis. Methods A case-control study was conducted in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. A total of 2570 patients, diagnosed in 2011 with prostate, breast, colorectal, lung, gynaecological and skin cancers including malignant melanoma, and 9424 controls were selected from the Swedish Cancer Register and a regional health care database. Diagnostic codes [International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10)] from primary care for patients with ≥4 GP consultations registered in the year before cancer diagnosis were collected. Likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for variables associated with the different cancers. Results Fifty-six percent of the patients had consulted a GP four or more times in the year before cancer diagnosis. Alarm symptoms or signs represented 60% of the codes with the highest LR, but only 40% of the 10 most prevalent codes. Breast lump had the highest LR, 11.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0-17.8]; abnormalities of plasma proteins had an LR of 5.0 (95% CI 3.0-8.2) and abnormal serum enzyme levels had an LR of 4.6 (95% CI 3.6-5.9). Early clinical features associated with cancer had been registered already at the first two GP consultations. Conclusion One out of six clinical features associated with cancer were presented by cancer patients with four or more pre-referral consultations already at the two first consultations. These early clinical features that were focal and had benign characteristics might have been missed diagnostic opportunities.

Multidisciplinary training of cancer specialists in Europe

There are several suggestions that centralization of care improves outcome for rare cancers, particularly when optimal treatment requires complex surgery or high-technology radiotherapy equipment. Diagnosis and treatment in reference centers are expected to be more accurate because they benefit from large numbers of cases discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board with a well-run pathway. However, centralization is sometimes moderately perceived by oncologists as a solution to be endorsed for rare cancer patients; disadvantages of centralization are the need for patients to move and the risk of a longer waiting list, with discomfort and possible negative effects on outcome. It is difficult to find single experts on rare cancers: all the more it will be difficult to find a multidisciplinary panel of experts, and the role of the surgeon is to be a functional part of it. On the other side, from a surgical point of view, the quality of the initial management of many rare cancers directly impacts the final outcome; surgery of rare cancers may not necessarily be more demanding than the average from a technical point of view, but the lack of cultural knowledge about the disease can well lead to inappropriateness even in the lack of major technical challenges. Care for rare cancer patients must be organized in pathways that cover the patients journey from their point of view rather than that of the healthcare system, and pathways must follow the best evidence on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Addition of alfa fetoprotein to traditional criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma improves selection accuracy in liver transplantation

The best care for patients with cancer is most likely to be achieved when decisions about diagnosis, staging and treatment are made at multidisciplinary and multiprofessional meetings, preferably when all the professional expertise relevant to the patients condition is gathered together. Questionnaires were sent to National Societies of Radiation Oncology and Medical Oncology concerning similarities and differences in training programs and multidisciplinary care in member states in Europe. Results indicated wide variation in training systems and practice. Data were lacking for Surgery because Surgical Oncology is not recognised as a speciality in the EU and most specialist training in cancer surgery is organ based. A period of time in cross-disciplinary training in each of the other two disciplines for all trainees in Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology and Surgical Oncology (including all surgeons training in cancer surgery) is recommended. This is likely to improve the value of multidisciplinary meetings and may result in improved patient care. The Expert Group on Cancer Control of the European Commission has endorsed this recommendation.