| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kvaerner, A. S., et al.
(author)
-
The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants
- 2021
-
In: Bmc Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2407. ; 21:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. However, current screening methods are either hampered by invasiveness or suboptimal performance, limiting their effectiveness as primary screening methods. To aid in the development of a non-invasive screening test with improved sensitivity and specificity, we have initiated a prospective biomarker study (CRCbiome), nested within a large randomized CRC screening trial in Norway. We aim to develop a microbiome-based classification algorithm to identify advanced colorectal lesions in screening participants testing positive for an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FIT). We will also examine interactions with host factors, diet, lifestyle and prescription drugs. The prospective nature of the study also enables the analysis of changes in the gut microbiome following the removal of precancerous lesions. Methods: The CRCbiome study recruits participants enrolled in the Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway (BCSN) study, a randomized trial initiated in 2012 comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy to repeated biennial FIT, where women and men aged 50-74 years at study entry are invited to participate. Since 2017, participants randomized to FIT screening with a positive test result have been invited to join the CRCbiome study. Self-reported diet, lifestyle and demographic data are collected prior to colonoscopy after the positive FIT-test (baseline). Screening data, including colonoscopy findings are obtained from the BCSN database. Fecal samples for gut microbiome analyses are collected both before and 2 and 12 months after colonoscopy. Samples are analyzed using metagenome sequencing, with taxonomy profiles, and gene and pathway content as primary measures. CRCbiome data will also be linked to national registries to obtain information on prescription histories and cancer relevant outcomes occurring during the 10 year follow-up period. Discussion: The CRCbiome study will increase our understanding of how the gut microbiome, in combination with lifestyle and environmental factors, influences the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. This knowledge will be crucial to develop microbiome-based screening tools for CRC. By evaluating biomarker performance in a screening setting, using samples from the target population, the generalizability of the findings to future screening cohorts is likely to be high.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(author)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
In: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
