| 1. |
- Campbell, PJ, et al.
(författare)
-
Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 578:7793, s. 82-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale1–3. Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter4; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation5,6; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution7; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity8,9; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes8,10–18.
|
|
| 2. |
- Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, et al.
(författare)
-
Reasons for Discontinuing Active Surveillance : Assessment of 21 Centres in 12 Countries in the Movember GAP3 Consortium
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 75:3, s. 523-531
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Careful assessment of the reasons for discontinuation of active surveillance (AS) is required for men with prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: Using Movember's Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance initiative (GAP3) database, we report on reasons for AS discontinuation. Design, setting, and participants: We compared data from 10 296 men on AS from 21 centres across 12 countries. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Cumulative incidence methods were used to estimate the cumulative incidence rates of AS discontinuation. Results and limitations: During 5-yr follow-up, 27.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4–28.6%) men showed signs of disease progression, 12.8% (95% CI: 12.0–13.6%) converted to active treatment without evidence of progression, 1.7% (95% CI: 1.5–2.0%) continued to watchful waiting, and 1.7% (95% CI: 1.4–2.1%) died from other causes. Of the 7049 men who remained on AS, 2339 had follow-up for >5 yr, 4561 had follow-up for <5 yr, and 149 were lost to follow-up. Cumulative incidence of progression was 27.5% (95% CI: 26.4–28.6%) at 5 yr and 38.2% (95% CI: 36.7–39.9%) at 10 yr. A limitation is that not all centres were included due to limited information on the reason for discontinuation and limited follow-up. Conclusions: Our descriptive analyses of current AS practices worldwide showed that 43.6% of men drop out of AS during 5-yr follow-up, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Improvements in selection tools for AS are thus needed to correctly allocate men with PCa to AS, which will also reduce discontinuation due to conversion to active treatment without evidence of disease progression. Patient summary: Our assessment of a worldwide database of men with prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS) shows that 43.6% drop out of AS within 5 yr, mainly due to signs of disease progression. Better tools are needed to select and monitor men with PCa as part of AS.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bruinsma, Sophie M, et al.
(författare)
-
Expert consensus document : Semantics in active surveillance for men with localized prostate cancer - results of a modified Delphi consensus procedure
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Nature Reviews Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1759-4820 .- 1759-4812. ; 14:5, s. 312-322
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Active surveillance (AS) is broadly described as a management option for men with low-risk prostate cancer, but semantic heterogeneity exists in both the literature and in guidelines. To address this issue, a panel of leading prostate cancer specialists in the field of AS participated in a consensus-forming project using a modified Delphi method to reach international consensus on definitions of terms related to this management option. An iterative three-round sequence of online questionnaires designed to address 61 individual items was completed by each panel member. Consensus was considered to be reached if ≥70% of the experts agreed on a definition. To facilitate a common understanding among all experts involved and resolve potential ambiguities, a face-to-face consensus meeting was held between Delphi survey rounds two and three. Convenience sampling was used to construct the panel of experts. In total, 12 experts from Australia, France, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, the UK, Canada and the USA participated. By the end of the Delphi process, formal consensus was achieved for 100% (n = 61) of the terms and a glossary was then developed. Agreement between international experts has been reached on relevant terms and subsequent definitions regarding AS for patients with localized prostate cancer. This standard terminology could support multidisciplinary communication, reduce the extent of variations in clinical practice and optimize clinical decision making.
|
|
