| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Davis, Faith G, et al.
(author)
-
Issues of diagnostic review in brain tumor studies : from the brain tumor epidemiology consortium
- 2008
-
In: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. - : American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). - 1055-9965 .- 1538-7755. ; 17:3, s. 484-489
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Epidemiologists routinely conduct centralized single pathology reviews to minimize interobserver diagnostic variability, but this practice does not facilitate the combination of studies across geographic regions and institutions where diagnostic practices differ. A meeting of neuropathologists and epidemiologists focused on brain tumor classification issues in the context of protocol needs for consortial studies (http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/btec/). It resulted in recommendations relevant to brain tumors and possibly other rare disease studies. Two categories of brain tumors have enough general agreement over time, across regions, and between individual pathologists that one can consider using existing diagnostic data without further review: glioblastomas and meningiomas (as long as uniform guidelines such as those provided by the WHO are used). Prospective studies of these tumors benefit from collection of pathology reports, at a minimum recording the pathology department and classification system used in the diagnosis. Other brain tumors, such as oligodendroglioma, are less distinct and require careful histopathologic review for consistent classification across study centers. Epidemiologic study protocols must consider the study specific aims, diagnostic changes that have taken place over time, and other issues unique to the type(s) of tumor being studied. As diagnostic changes are being made rapidly, there are no readily available answers on disease classification issues. It is essential that epidemiologists and neuropathologists collaborate to develop appropriate study designs and protocols for specific hypothesis and populations.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hagmar, Lars, et al.
(author)
-
Epidemiological evaluation of cytogenetic biomarkers as potential surrogate end-points for cancer.
- 2004
-
In: Mechanisms of Carcinogenesis (IARC Sci. Publ. ; 157). - 9283221575 - 9789283221579 ; :157, s. 207-215
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Various occupational exposures have been monitored by chromosomal aberrations, sister chromatid exchanges and micronuclei in peripheral blood lymphocytes. During the last decade, epidemiological studies have evaluated whether any of these markers foreshadows cancer risk. Results from Nordic, Italian and Czech cohorts support an approximately twofold cancer risk among subjects with high frequencies of chromosomal aberrations, but no such association was seen for any of the other biomarkers. The estimated attributable proportion of high frequencies of chromosomal aberrations for overall cancer risk is 0.25, which gives a quantitative estimate of the chromosomal aberration assay as a surrogate endpoint of cancer. The results from the different cohort studies are contradictory in terms of whether or not the predictive value of the chromosomal aberration assay for cancer is differential with respect to occupational exposure to clastogens. Genetic susceptibility factors are known to affect the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes. It is quite possible that such factors might also affect the frequency of chromosomal aberrations directly or might modify the impact of exposures to clastogen. There is no other biomarker for general cancer risk that is applicable to healthy subjects from the general population with such a high attributable proportion. However, at present only a simplified and tentative model can be proposed for the role of the chromosomal aberration marker in the pathogenesis of cancer.
|
|
