Cancer risk is determined by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified hundreds of common (minor allele frequency [MAF]>0.05) and less common (0.01

Purpose There are no nationally representative data on oncologists’ use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) testing in practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate how oncologists in the United States use NGS tests to evaluate patients with cancer and to inform treatment recommendations. Methods The study used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, which was mailed to a nationally representative sample of oncologists in 2017 (N = 1,281; cooperation rate = 38%). Weighted percentages were calculated to describe NGS test use. Multivariable modeling was conducted to assess the association of test use with oncologist practice characteristics. Results Overall, 75.6% of oncologists reported using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions. Of these oncologists, 34.0% used them often to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced refractory disease, 29.1% to determine eligibility for clinical trials, and 17.5% to decide on off-label use of Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs. NGS test results informed treatment recommendations often for 26.8%, sometimes for 52.4%, and never or rarely for 20.8% of oncologists. Oncologists younger than 50 years of age, holding a faculty appointment, having genomics training, seeing more than 50 unique patients per month, and having access to a molecular tumor board were more likely to use NGS tests. Conclusion In 2017, most oncologists in the United States were using NGS tests to guide treatment decisions for their patients. More research is needed to establish the clinical usefulness of these tests, to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines for their use in practice, and to ensure that patients who can benefit from these new technologies receive appropriate testing and treatment.

Background Risk of cancer is determined by a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Although the study of gene-environment (GxE) interactions has been an active area of research, little is reported about the known findings in the literature. Methods To examine the state of the science in GxE research in cancer, we performed a systematic review of published literature using gene-environment or pharmacogenomic flags from two curated databases of genetic association studies, the Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) literature finder and Cancer Genome-Wide Association and Meta Analyses Database (CancerGAMAdb), from January 1, 2001, to January 31, 2011. A supplemental search using HuGE was conducted for articles published February 1, 2011, to April 11, 2013. A 25% sample of the supplemental publications was reviewed. Results A total of 3,019 articles were identified in the original search. From these articles, 243 articles were determined to be relevant based on inclusion criteria (more than 3,500 interactions). From the supplemental search (1,400 articles identified), 29 additional relevant articles (1,370 interactions) were included. The majority of publications in both searches examined GxE in colon, rectal, or colorectal cancer types; breast; or lung cancer. Specific interactions examined most frequently included environmental factors categorized as energy balance (e.g., body mass index (BMI), diet), exogenous (e.g., oral contraceptives) and endogenous hormones (e.g., menopausal status), chemical environment (e.g., grilled meats), and lifestyle (e.g., smoking, alcohol intake). In both searches, the majority of interactions examined were using loci from candidate genes studies and none of the studies were genome-wide interaction studies (GEWIS). The most commonly reported measure was the interaction p-value, of which a sizable number of p-values were considered statistically significant (i.e., < 0.05). In addition, the magnitudes of interactions reported were modest. Conclusion Observations of published literature suggest that opportunity exists for increased sample size in GxE research, including GWAS identified loci in GxE studies, exploring more GWAS approaches in GxE such as GEWIS, and improving the reporting of GxE findings.

As the number of cancer survivors continues to grow, research investigating the factors that affect cancer outcomes, such as disease recurrence, risk of second malignant neoplasms, and the late effects of cancer treatments, becomes ever more important. Numerous epidemiologic studies have investigated factors that affect cancer risk, but far fewer have addressed the extent to which demographic, lifestyle, genomic, clinical, and psychosocial factors influence cancer outcomes. To identify research priorities as well as resources and infrastructure needed to advance the field of cancer outcomes and survivorship research, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a workshop titled "Utilizing Data from Cancer Survivor Cohorts: Understanding the Current State of Knowledge and Developing Future Research Priorities" on November 3, 2011, in Washington, DC. This commentary highlights recent findings presented at the workshop, opportunities to leverage existing data, and recommendations for future research, data, and infrastructure needed to address high priority clinical and research questions. Multidisciplinary teams that include epidemiologists, clinicians, biostatisticians, and bioinformaticists will be essential to facilitate future cancer outcome studies focused on improving clinical care of cancer patients, identifying those at high risk of poor outcomes, and implementing effective interventions to ultimately improve the quality and duration of survival.

Background: It has been hypothesized that cancer treatments cause accelerated aging through a mechanism involving the shortening of telomeres. However, the effect of cancer treatments on telomere length is unclear. Methods: We systematically reviewed the epidemiological evidence evaluating the associations between cancer treatment and changes in telomere length. Searches were performed in PubMed for the period of January 1966 through November 2016 using the following search strategy: telomere AND (cancer OR tumor OR carcinoma OR neoplasm) AND (survivor OR patient). Data were extracted and the quality of studies was assessed. Results: A total of 25 studies were included in this review. Ten were solid cancer studies, 11 were hematological malignancy studies, and 4 included a mixed sample of both solid and hematological cancers. Three of the 10 solid tumor studies reported a statistically significant association between cancer treatment and telomere length shortening, and one reported longer telomere length after treatment. Among the hematological cancer studies, three showed statistically significant decreases in telomere length with treatment, and two showed elongation. When these studies were rated using quality criteria, most of the studies were judged to be of moderate quality. Conclusions: The findings from this review indicate that the effect of cancer treatment on telomere length may differ by cancer type and treatment as well as other factors. Definitive conclusions cannot be made based on the published literature, because sample sizes tended to be small; treatments, cancer types, and biospecimens were heterogenous; and the length of follow-up times differed greatly. REVIEW

A major promise of genomic research is information that can transform health care and public health through earlier diagnosis, more effective prevention and treatment of disease, and avoidance of drug side effects. Although there is interest in the early adoption of emerging genomic applications in cancer prevention and treatment, there are substantial evidence gaps that are further compounded by the difficulties of designing adequately powered studies to generate this evidence, thus limiting the uptake of these tools into clinical practice. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to generate evidence on the "real-world" effectiveness compared with existing standards of care so informed decisions can be made to improve health care. Capitalizing on funding opportunities from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the National Cancer Institute funded seven research teams to conduct CER in genomic and precision medicine and sponsored a workshop on CER on May 30, 2012, in Bethesda, Maryland. This report highlights research findings from those research teams, challenges to conducting CER, the barriers to implementation in clinical practice, and research priorities and opportunities in CER in genomic and precision medicine. Workshop participants strongly emphasized the need for conducting CER for promising molecularly targeted therapies, developing and supporting an integrated clinical network for open-access resources, supporting bioinformatics and computer science research, providing training and education programs in CER, and conducting research in economic and decision modeling.

Purpose of review Cancer-related emergency department (ED) visits often result in higher hospital admission rates than non-cancer visits. It has been estimated many of these costly hospital admissions can be prevented, yet urgent care clinics and EDs lack cancer-specific care resources to support the needs of this complex population. Implementing effective approaches across different care settings and populations to minimize ED and urgent care visits improves oncologic complication management, and coordinating follow-up care will be particularly important as the population of cancer patients and survivors continues to increase. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Office of Emergency Care (OECR) convened a workshop in December 2021, “Cancer-related Emergency and Urgent Care: Prevention, Management, and Care Coordination” to highlight progress, knowledge gaps, and research opportunities. This report describes the current landscape of cancer-related urgent and emergency care and includes research recommendations from workshop participants to decrease the risk of oncologic complications, improve their management, and enhance coordination of care. Recent findings Since 2014, NCI and OECR have collaborated to support research in cancer-related emergency care. Workshop participants recommended a number of promising research opportunities, as well as key considerations for designing and conducting research in this area. Opportunities included better characterizing unscheduled care services, identifying those at higher risk for such care, developing care delivery models to minimize unplanned events and enhance their care, recognizing cancer prevention and screening opportunities in the ED, improving management of specific cancer-related presentations, and conducting goals of care conversations. Summary Significant progress has been made over the past 7 years with the creation of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergency Research Network, broad involvement of the emergency medicine and oncology communities, establishing a proof-of-concept observational study, and NCI and OECR’s efforts to support this area of research. However, critical gaps remain.

Metformin and aspirin were associated with a reduced risk of cancer recurrence and cancer-specific mortality. The evidence for statins and antihypertensive medications on cancer survival was inconsistent. There were few studies to suggest that any of the medication classes of interest were associated with negative effects on cancer survival. Methodological shortcomings within observational studies, such as confounding, distinguishing between use of medications pre-cancer versus post-cancer diagnosis/treatment, misclassification of exposures/outcomes, informative censoring and competing risks, must be considered. New observational studies addressing these limitations are essential. Some clinical trials are underway to further investigate the beneficial effects of these drugs and completed trials have confirmed results demonstrated in observational studies.