Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 42676126

Mining Stored-Specimen Studies for Information about Cancer Natural History.

Abstract

The advent of new multicancer early detection tests and publication of early diagnostic results have generated expectations of clinical benefit from multicancer screening. The clinical benefit of a cancer screening test depends critically on disease natural history, which is typically learned from prospective screening studies. Retrospective studies of stored blood specimens are important in learning about a test's preclinical diagnostic performance but have rarely been used to infer natural history. The extent to which these studies might be harnessed to also learn natural history is discussed in the context of an article in this issue that infers the combined natural history of a range of cancers targeted by a multicancer early detection test using a case-control subsample of specimens from a large cohort study. The critical question concerns the identifiability of key transition rates in multistate models of natural history alongside state-specific sensitivities. The article suggests that these parameters are estimable within a Bayesian framework that leverages prior information about test sensitivity from diagnostic studies. We offer a heuristic discussion of identifiability in this setting and encourage formal study to determine the extent to which models with varying degrees of complexity may be learned from stored-specimen studies. See related article by Dai et al., p. 1535.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jane Lange, Ruth Etzioni. 2026-09-01. Mining Stored-Specimen Studies for Information about Cancer Natural History.. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-26-0731

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Stage shift, histological differentiation, and survival patterns of lung squamous cell carcinoma versus adenocarcinoma in low-dose CT screening.

BACKGROUND: Whether LDCT-associated stage shift translates into similar survival patterns across lung cancer histologies remains uncertain. We compared stage shift, histological differentiation, tumor characteristics, and survival between lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC) and adenocarcinoma (LUAD) in the National Lung Screening Trial. METHODS: Among participants diagnosed with LUSC or LUAD, stage distribution and histological differentiation were compared between LDCT and chest X-ray (CXR) arms. Survival among diagnosed cases was measured from randomization. Multivariable models tested screening arm-by-histology interactions. Screen-detected LDCT tumors were compared by histology. RESULTS: During 6.5 years of median follow-up, 498 LUAD and 249 LUSC cases were diagnosed in the LDCT arm, and 374 and 212, respectively, were diagnosed in the CXR arm. LDCT was associated with higher odds of stage I disease for LUAD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.48; 95% CI 1.88-3.28) and LUSC (aOR, 1.71; 95% CI 1.17-2.48), without significant interaction (P&#x202f;=&#x202f;0.116). LDCT was associated with lower hazard of lung cancer-specific death among diagnosed LUAD cases (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.54; 95% CI 0.43-0.66), but not among diagnosed LUSC cases (aHR, 1.04; 95% CI 0.78-1.39; P for interaction<0.001). LUSC had lower screening sensitivity, more frequent detection in annual screening rounds, greater prediagnostic tumor size increase, and fewer well-differentiated stage I tumors than LUAD. CONCLUSION: LDCT was associated with stage shift for both subtypes, but favorable survival patterns among diagnosed cases were mainly observed for LUAD. Lower screening sensitivity, greater prediagnostic tumor size increase, and poorer histological differentiation may help explain why stage shift did not translate into similar survival patterns for LUSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00047385.

Humans

HPV Testing Versus Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening&#xa0;Among Women 50&#x2009;Years and Older: Evidence From the HPV FOCAL Randomized Controlled Trial.

Evidence on the comparative effectiveness of HPV testing versus cytology specifically in women aged &#x2265;&#x2009;50&#x2009;years who are approaching screening cessation remains limited. This analysis included 6471 women aged &#x2265;&#x2009;50 at baseline screening in the HPV FOCAL randomized clinical trial. Women were randomly allocated to receive cytology (Control Group, n&#x2009;=&#x2009;3248, 50.19%) or HPV testing (Intervention Group, n&#x2009;=&#x2009;3223, 49.81%) at baseline, with co-testing at 48-month exit. We calculated incidence rates and risk ratios for CIN2+ detection over follow-up and compared missed lesions at exit by screening method. At the 48-month exit, CIN2+ detection was lower among HPV baseline-negative women than among those in the cytology group (1.61/1000 [95% CI, 0.52-3.76] vs. 3.15/1000 [95% CI, 1.51-5.78]; risk ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.11-0.91]), reflecting higher baseline detection with HPV testing and fewer prevalent lesions at exit. Even with cytology re-screening at 2&#x2009;years, 50% of CIN2+ cases were missed compared to 30% with HPV testing. After adjusting for age, education, smoking status, and lifetime sexual partners, the hazard ratio for CIN2+ comparing HPV to cytology was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.22-0.88). Among women aged &#x2265;&#x2009;50&#x2009;years, HPV primary screening was more effective than cytology at detecting CIN2+ lesions and was associated with a continued lower subsequent risk following a negative HPV test, supporting its use in cervical cancer screening programs in this age cohort.

Aged

AI Health message intervention: The role of message customization and message source in breast cancer screening among women of color.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of breast cancer screening messages with varying levels of customization (generic, targeted, and tailored) and to compare AI-generated versus human-generated messages. METHODS: A between-subjects experimental design with a control condition was employed. Message content followed a standardized structure and varied by level of customization: generic, targeted (demographic-based), and tailored (perceived susceptibility- and barrier-based). Messages were developed by either the authors or GenAI (ChatGPT-4o). A total of 391 participants recruited via Prolific were randomly assigned to five groups (generic, targeted-human, targeted-AI, tailored-human, and tailored-AI). Self-efficacy, behavioral intentions, attitudes, and message believability were measured using different scales. RESULTS: Customized (tailoring and targeting) health messages performed comparably to generic messages in shaping positive health outcomes. GenAI-generated messages also produced outcomes comparable to those of human-generated messages under standardized conditions. Significant negative indirect effects through message believability for the human-tailored condition was found relative to the generic condition. CONCLUSIONS: GenAI may be a useful tool for developing and customizing scalable health messages. Its effectiveness depends not only on customization but also on maintaining message quality, including readability, clarity, coherence, naturalness, and credibility. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: GenAI may support health practitioners in developing customized and scalable breast cancer messages. However, professional review remains necessary to ensure that the message is culturally appropriate, responsive to patient concerns, and suitable for use alongside patient-provider communication.

Humans