Universal cancer screening: revolutionary, rational, and realizable

David A Ahlquist, David A Ahlquist

Abstract

Cancer remains the second leading cause of mortality worldwide, and overall cancer-related deaths are increasing. Despite the survival benefit from early detection, screening has to date targeted only those few organs that harbor tumors of sufficient prevalence to show cost-effectiveness at population levels, leaving most cancer types unscreened. In this perspective overview, a case is made for universal cancer screening as a logical and more inclusive approach with potentially high impact. The centrally important conceptual drivers to universal screening are biological and epidemiological. The shared biology of tumor marker release into a common distant medium, like blood, can be exploited for multi-cancer detection from a single test. And, by aggregating prevalence rates, universal screening allows all cancers (including less common ones) to be included as targets, increases screening efficiency and integration across tumor types, and potentially improves cost-effectiveness over single-organ approaches. The identification of new tumor marker classes with both broad expression across tumor types and site-prediction, remarkable advances in assay technologies, and compelling early clinical data increase the likelihood of actualizing this new paradigm. Multi-organ screening could be achieved by targeting markers within or stemming from the circulation (including blood, urine, saliva, and expired breath) or those exfoliated into common excretory pathways (including the gastrointestinal and female reproductive tracts). Rigorous clinical studies in intended use populations and collaborations between academia, industry, professional societies, and government will be required to bring this lofty vision to a population application.

Conflict of interest statement

D.A.A. is co-inventor of the multi-target stool DNA test (Cologuard) and receives a portion of royalties from Exact Sciences to Mayo Clinic in accordance with Mayo Clinic policy. Mayo Clinic has an umbrella agreement with Exact Sciences to co-develop next generation molecular diagnostics for cancer detection; D.A.A. and his research team have contributed substantial intellectual property in this effort that has been licensed to Exact Sciences. The views expressed in this article are those of D.A.A. and do not reflect inputs from either Mayo Clinic or Exact Sciences.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Current single-organ and future universal cancer screening approaches: a conceptual comparison of features
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Impact of cancer prevalence on screening efficiencies. a Exponential relationship between cancer prevalence and the number of patients needed to be screened to detect a single cancer (NNS). Estimated NNS is plotted for cancers at individual gastrointestinal organs (only colorectal screening is currently practiced), for combined gastrointestinal cancers (Pan-GI), and for all cancer types in aggregate (Universal). For this illustration, detection sensitivities of 100% were assumed in calculations of NNS. b Influence of cancer prevalence on positive predictive value (PPV) at various specificities. For illustrative purposes, estimated PPVs are plotted for same spectrum of single and combined cancer screening approaches as in a. For both a and b, conservative prevalence estimates obtained from the literature are used.,,
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Detection and site prediction of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test: early results. Performance data from a prototype assay targeting various proteins and gene mutations in plasma are shown across eight common cancer types. a Sensitivity by cancer type at 99% specificity. b Accuracy of tumor localization in test-positive patients. Percentages correspond to the proportion of patients in whom tumor location was correctly classified as the most likely site (light bars) or as one of the two most likely sites (light + dark bars). Figures modified from the original publication.

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21442.
    1. Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends—an update. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2016;25:16–27. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0578.
    1. Kim J, Lee SK, Kim S, Koo MY, Choi M-Y, Cho DH, Bae SY, Lee J, Jung SP, Lee JE, Yang J-H, Nam SJ. P5-14-02: Clinicopathologic and Prognostic Difference of Screen Detected Breast Cancer Compared with Symptomatic Breast Cancer. Cancer Research. 2011;71(24 Supplement):P5-14-02-P5-14-02.
    1. Plumb AA, et al. Appearances of screen-detected versus symptomatic colorectal cancers at CT colonography. Eur. Radiol. 2016;26:4313–4322. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4293-7.
    1. Smith RA, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. Cancer J. Clin. 2018 doi: 10.3322/caac.21446.
    1. Howlader, N. et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review (CSR) 1975–2014. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, based on November 2016 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, (2017).
    1. Pandharipande PV, et al. Targeted screening of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: results of a simulation model. Radiology. 2015;275:177–187. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14141282.
    1. Wood DE, et al. Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl Compr. Cancer Netw. 2018;16:412–441. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0020.
    1. Fateen W, Ryder SD. Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma: patient selection and perspectives. J. Hepatocell. Carcinoma. 2017;4:71–79. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S105777.
    1. Giles G. How important are estimates of cancer prevalence? Ann. Oncol. 2002;13:815–816. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdf204.
    1. Sens MA, Zhou X, Weiland T, Cooley AM. Unexpected neoplasia in autopsies: potential implications for tissue and organ safety. Arch. Pathol. Lab Med. 2009;133:1923–1931.
    1. Burton EC, Troxclair DA, Newman WP., 3rd Autopsy diagnoses of malignant neoplasms: how often are clinical diagnoses incorrect? JAMA. 1998;280:1245–1248. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.14.1245.
    1. Karwinski B, Svendsen E, Hartveit F. Clinically undiagnosed malignant tumours found at autopsy. APMIS. 1990;98:496–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1990.tb01062.x.
    1. Imperiale TF, et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:1287–1297. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1311194.
    1. Twombly R, Full-body CT. Screening: preventing or producing cancer? J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1650–1651. doi: 10.1093/jnci/96.22.1650.
    1. Welch HG, Skinner JS, Schroeck FR, Zhou W, Black WC. Regional variation of computed tomographic imaging in the united states and the risk of nephrectomy. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:221–227. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.7508.
    1. Cheng Z, Yan X, Sun X, Shen B, Gambhir SS. Tumor molecular imaging with nanoparticles. Engineering. 2016;2:132–140. doi: 10.1016/J.ENG.2016.01.027.
    1. Yu EY, et al. Magnetic particle imaging: a novel in vivo imaging platform for cancer detection. Nano Lett. 2017;17:1648–1654. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b04865.
    1. Tipirneni KE, et al. Fluorescence imaging for cancer screening and surveillance. Mol. Imaging Biol. 2017;19:645–655. doi: 10.1007/s11307-017-1050-5.
    1. Hoadley KA, et al. Cell-of-origin patterns dominate the molecular classification of 10,000 tumors from 33 types of cancer. Cell. 2018;173:291–304. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.022.
    1. Snyder MW, Kircher M, Hill AJ, Daza RM, Shendure J. Cell-free DNA comprises an in vivo nucleosome footprint that informs its tissues-of-origin. Cell. 2016;164:57–68. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.050.
    1. Kang S, et al. CancerLocator: non-invasive cancer diagnosis and tissue-of-origin prediction using methylation profiles of cell-free DNA. Genome Biol. 2017;18:53. doi: 10.1186/s13059-017-1191-5.
    1. Kisiel JB, et al. Multi-site gastrointestinal cancer detection by stool DNA. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:S-95. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(18)30761-3.
    1. Cohen JD, et al. Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test. Science. 2018;359:926–930. doi: 10.1126/science.aar3247.
    1. Wan JCM, et al. Liquid biopsies come of age: towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2017;17:223–238. doi: 10.1038/nrc.2017.7.
    1. Liu Y, Song C, Ladas I, Fitarelli-Kiehl M, Makrigiorgos GM. Methylation-sensitive enrichment of minor DNA alleles using a double-strand DNA-specific nuclease. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:e39. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1166.
    1. Newman AM, et al. An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage. Nat. Med. 2014;20:548–554. doi: 10.1038/nm.3519.
    1. Li M, et al. Sensitive digital quantification of DNA methylation in clinical samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009;27:858–863. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1559.
    1. Anderson, B. W. et al. Detection of gastric cancer with novel methylated DNA markers: discovery, tissue validation, and pilot testing in plasma. Clin. Cancer Res. (2018) 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3364.
    1. Ching Travers, Himmelstein Daniel S., Beaulieu-Jones Brett K., Kalinin Alexandr A., Do Brian T., Way Gregory P., Ferrero Enrico, Agapow Paul-Michael, Zietz Michael, Hoffman Michael M., Xie Wei, Rosen Gail L., Lengerich Benjamin J., Israeli Johnny, Lanchantin Jack, Woloszynek Stephen, Carpenter Anne E., Shrikumar Avanti, Xu Jinbo, Cofer Evan M., Lavender Christopher A., Turaga Srinivas C., Alexandari Amr M., Lu Zhiyong, Harris David J., DeCaprio Dave, Qi Yanjun, Kundaje Anshul, Peng Yifan, Wiley Laura K., Segler Marwin H. S., Boca Simina M., Swamidass S. Joshua, Huang Austin, Gitter Anthony, Greene Casey S. Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2018;15(141):20170387. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0387.
    1. Hao X, et al. DNA methylation markers for diagnosis and prognosis of common cancers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2017;114:7414–7419. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1703577114.
    1. Lidgard GP, et al. Clinical performance of an automated stool DNA assay for detection of colorectal neoplasia. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013;11:1313–1318. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.04.023.
    1. D’Souza-Schorey C, Clancy JW. Tumor-derived microvesicles: shedding light on novel microenvironment modulators and prospective cancer biomarkers. Genes Dev. 2012;26:1287–1299. doi: 10.1101/gad.192351.112.
    1. Adams DL, et al. Circulating giant macrophages as a potential biomarker of solid tumors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2014;111:3514–3519. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1320198111.
    1. Macdonald IK, Parsy-Kowalska CB, Chapman CJ. Autoantibodies: opportunities for early cancer detection. Trends Cancer. 2017;3:198–213. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2017.02.003.
    1. Butler TM, Spellman PT, Gray J. Circulating-tumor DNA as an early detection and diagnostic tool. Curr. Opin. Genet Dev. 2017;42:14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2016.12.003.
    1. Kisiel JB, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma detection by plasma assay of methylated DNA markers: phase II clinical validation. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:S1113–S1114. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(18)33704-1.
    1. Adams DL, et al. Circulating cancer-associated macrophage-like cells differentiate malignant breast cancer and benign breast conditions. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2016;25:1037–1042. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-1221.
    1. Ronald JA, Chuang HY, Dragulescu-Andrasi A, Hori SS, Gambhir SS. Detecting cancers through tumor-activatable minicircles that lead to a detectable blood biomarker. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2015;112:3068–3073. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414156112.
    1. Yasui T, et al. Unveiling massive numbers of cancer-related urinary-microRNA candidates via nanowires. Sci. Adv. 2017;3:e1701133. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1701133.
    1. Kaczor-Urbanowicz KE, et al. Emerging technologies for salivaomics in cancer detection. J. Cell Mol. Med. 2017;21:640–647. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.13007.
    1. Herman-Saffar O, et al. Early non-invasive detection of breast cancer using exhaled breath and urine analysis. Comput. Biol. Med. 2018;96:227–232. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.04.002.
    1. Krilaviciute A, et al. Detection of cancer through exhaled breath: a systematic review. Oncotarget. 2015;6:38643–38657. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.5938.
    1. Ahlquist DA, et al. The stool DNA test is more accurate than the plasma septin 9 test in detecting colorectal neoplasia. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012;10:272–277. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.10.008.
    1. Redwood DG, et al. Stool DNA testing for screening detection of colorectal neoplasia in Alaska native people. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2016;91:61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.10.008.
    1. Strauss BB, et al. Fecal recovery of ingested cellular DNA: implications for noninvasive detection of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2016;61:117–125. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3845-z.
    1. Bakkum-Gamez JN, et al. Detection of endometrial cancer via molecular analysis of DNA collected with vaginal tampons. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015;137:14–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.552.
    1. Wang Yuxuan, Li Lu, Douville Christopher, Cohen Joshua D., Yen Ting-Tai, Kinde Isaac, Sundfelt Karin, Kjær Susanne K., Hruban Ralph H., Shih Ie-Ming, Wang Tian-Li, Kurman Robert J., Springer Simeon, Ptak Janine, Popoli Maria, Schaefer Joy, Silliman Natalie, Dobbyn Lisa, Tanner Edward J., Angarita Ana, Lycke Maria, Jochumsen Kirsten, Afsari Bahman, Danilova Ludmila, Levine Douglas A., Jardon Kris, Zeng Xing, Arseneau Jocelyne, Fu Lili, Diaz Luis A., Karchin Rachel, Tomasetti Cristian, Kinzler Kenneth W., Vogelstein Bert, Fader Amanda N., Gilbert Lucy, Papadopoulos Nickolas. Evaluation of liquid from the Papanicolaou test and other liquid biopsies for the detection of endometrial and ovarian cancers. Science Translational Medicine. 2018;10(433):eaap8793. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aap8793.

Source: PubMed

3
Sottoscrivi