| 1. |
- Glimelius, Bengt, et al.
(författare)
-
U-CAN : a prospective longitudinal collection of biomaterials and clinical information from adult cancer patients in Sweden.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Acta Oncologica. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0284-186X .- 1651-226X. ; 57:2, s. 187-194
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Progress in cancer biomarker discovery is dependent on access to high-quality biological materials and high-resolution clinical data from the same cases. To overcome current limitations, a systematic prospective longitudinal sampling of multidisciplinary clinical data, blood and tissue from cancer patients was therefore initiated in 2010 by Uppsala and Umeå Universities and involving their corresponding University Hospitals, which are referral centers for one third of the Swedish population.Material and Methods: Patients with cancer of selected types who are treated at one of the participating hospitals are eligible for inclusion. The healthcare-integrated sampling scheme encompasses clinical data, questionnaires, blood, fresh frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue specimens, diagnostic slides and radiology bioimaging data.Results: In this ongoing effort, 12,265 patients with brain tumors, breast cancers, colorectal cancers, gynecological cancers, hematological malignancies, lung cancers, neuroendocrine tumors or prostate cancers have been included until the end of 2016. From the 6914 patients included during the first five years, 98% were sampled for blood at diagnosis, 83% had paraffin-embedded and 58% had fresh frozen tissues collected. For Uppsala County, 55% of all cancer patients were included in the cohort.Conclusions: Close collaboration between participating hospitals and universities enabled prospective, longitudinal biobanking of blood and tissues and collection of multidisciplinary clinical data from cancer patients in the U-CAN cohort. Here, we summarize the first five years of operations, present U-CAN as a highly valuable cohort that will contribute to enhanced cancer research and describe the procedures to access samples and data.
|
|
| 2. |
- Berggrund, Malin, et al.
(författare)
-
Identification of candidate plasma protein biomarkers for cervical cancer using the multiplex proximity extension assay
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Molecular & Cellular Proteomics. - 1535-9476 .- 1535-9484. ; 18:4, s. 735-743
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Human papillomavirus (HPV) is recommended as the primary test in cervical cancer screening, with co-testing by cytology for HPV-positive women to identify cervical lesions. Cytology has low sensitivity and there is a need to identify biomarkers that could identify dysplasia that are likely to progress to cancer. We searched for plasma proteins that could identify women with cervical cancer using the multiplex proximity extension assay (PEA). The abundance of 100 proteins were measured in plasma collected at the time of diagnosis of patients with invasive cervical cancer and in population controls using the Olink Multiplex panels CVD II, INF I, and ONC II. Eighty proteins showed increased levels in cases compared to controls. We identified a signature of 11 proteins (PTX3, ITGB1BP2, AXIN1, STAMPB, SRC, SIRT2, 4E-BP1, PAPPA, HB-EGF, NEMO and IL27) that distinguished cases and controls with a sensitivity of 0.96 at a specificity of 1.0. This signature was evaluated in a prospective replication cohort with samples collected before, at or after diagnosis and achieved a sensitivity of 0.78 and a specificity 0.56 separating samples collected at the time of diagnosis of invasive cancer from samples collected prior to diagnosis. No difference in abundance was seen between samples collected prior to diagnosis or after treatment as compared to population controls, indicating that this protein signature is mainly informative close to time of diagnosis. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal window in time prior to diagnosis for these biomarker candidates.
|
|
| 3. |
- Falconer, Henrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Robot-assisted approach to cervical cancer (RACC) : an international multi-center, open-label randomized controlled trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 1048-891X .- 1525-1438. ; 29:6, s. 1072-1076
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy represents the standard treatment for early-stage cervical cancer. Results from a recent randomized controlled trial demonstrate that minimally invasive surgery is inferior to laparotomy with regards to disease-free and overall survival.Primary Objective: To investigate the oncologic safety of robot-assisted surgery for early-stage cervical cancer as compared with standard laparotomy.Study Hypothesis: Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy is non-inferior to laparotomy in regards to recurrence-free survival with the advantage of fewer post-operative complications and superior patient-reported outcomes.Trial Design: Prospective, multi-institutional, international, open-label randomized clinical trial. Consecutive women with early-stage cervical cancer will be assessed for eligibility and subsequently randomized 1:1 to either robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy. Institutional review board approval will be required from all participating institutions. The trial is coordinated from Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden.Major Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Women over 18 with cervical cancer FIGO (2018) stages IB1, IB2, and IIA1 squamous, adenocarcinoma, or adenosquamous will be included. Women are not eligible if they have evidence of metastatic disease, serious co-morbidity, or a secondary invasive neoplasm in the past 5 years.Primary Endpoint: Recurrence-free survival at 5 years between women who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparotomy for early-stage cervical cancer.Sample Size: The clinical non-inferiority margin in this study is defined as a 5-year recurrence-free survival not worsened by >7.5%. With an expected recurrence-free survival of 85%, the study needs to observe 127 events with a one-sided level of significance (alpha) of 5% and a power (1-beta) of 80%. With 5 years of recruitment and 3 years of follow-up, the necessary number of events will be reached if the study can recruit a total of 768 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: Trial launch is estimated to be May 2019 and the trial is estimated to close in May 2027 with presentation of data shortly thereafter.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wedin, Madelene, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk factors for lymphedema and method of assessment in endometrial cancer: a prospective longitudinal multicenter study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Gynecological Cancer. - : BMJ. - 1048-891X .- 1525-1438. ; 31:11, s. 1416-1427
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective The aim of the study was to determine risk factors for lymphedema of the lower limbs, assessed by four methods, 1 year after surgery for endometrial cancer. Methods A prospective longitudinal multicenter study was conducted in 14 Swedish hospitals. 235 women with endometrial cancer were included; 116 underwent surgery including lymphadenectomy, and 119 had surgery without lymphadenectomy. Lymphedema was assessed preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively objectively by systematic circumferential measurements of the legs, enabling volume estimation addressed as (1) crude volume and (2) body mass index-standardized volume, or (3) clinical grading, and (4) subjectively by patient-reported perception of leg swelling. In volume estimation, lymphedema was defined as a volume increase >= 10%. Risk factors were analyzed using forward stepwise logistic regression models and presented as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results Risk factors varied substantially, depending on the method of determining lymphedema. Lymphadenectomy was a risk factor for lymphedema when assessed by body mass index-standardized volume (aOR 14.42, 95% CI 3.49 to 59.62), clinical grading (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.29), and patient-perceived swelling (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.73), but not when evaluated by crude volume. Adjuvant radiotherapy was only a risk factor for lymphedema when assessed by body mass index-standardized volume (aOR 15.02, 95% CI 2.34 to 96.57). Aging was a risk factor for lymphedema when assessed by body mass index-standardized volume (aOR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.15) and patient-perceived swelling (aOR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.10), but not when assessed by crude volume or clinical grading. Increase in body mass index was a risk factor for lymphedema when estimated by crude volume (aOR 1.92, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.71) and patient-perceived swelling (aOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.66), but not by body mass index-standardized volume or clinical grading. The extent of lymphadenectomy was strongly predictive for the development of lymphedema when assessed by body mass index-standardized volume and patient-perceived swelling, but not by crude volume or clinical grading. Conclusion Apparent risk factors for lymphedema differed considerably depending on the method used to determine lymphedema. This highlights the need for a 'gold standard' method when addressing lymphedema for determining risk factors.
|
|
