The US Cancer Moonshot initiative

Aelion, C. Marjorie; Airhihenbuwa, Collins O.; Alemagno, Sonia A.; Amler, Robert W.; Arnett, Donna K.; Balas, E. Andrew; Bertozzi, Stefano; Blakely, Craig; Boerwinkle, Eric; Brandt‐Rauf, Paul W.; Buekens, Pierre; Chandler, G. Thomas; Chang, Rowland W.; Clark, Jane E.; Cleary, Paul D.; Curran, James W.; Curry, Susan J.; Roux, Ana V. Diez; Dittus, Robert S.; Ellerbeck, Edward F.; El-Mohandes, Ayman; Eriksen, Michael P.; Erwin, Paul Campbell; Evans, Gregory W.; Finnegan, John R.; Fried, Linda P.; Frumkin, Howard; Galea, Sandro; Goff, David C.; Goldman, Lynn R.; Guilarte, Tomás R.; Rivera-Gutiérrez, Ralph; Halverson, Paul K.; Hand, Gregory A.; Harris, Cynthia M.; Healton, Cheryl; Hennig, Nils; Heymann, Jody; Hunter, David G.; Hwang, Wenke; Jones, Resa M.; Klag, Michael J.; Klesges, Lisa M.; Lahey, Tim; Lawlor, Edward; Maddock, Jay E.; Martin, William J.; Mazzaschi, Anthony J.; Michael, Max; Mohammed, Shan; Nasca, Philip C.; Nash, David B.; Ogunseitan, Oladele A.; Perez, Ronald A.; Perri, Michael G.; Petersen, Donna J.; Peterson, Darleen V.; Philbert, Martin A.; Pinto‐Martin, Jennifer; Raczynski, James M.; Raskob, Gary E.; Rimer, Barbara K.; Rohrbach, Louise Ann; Rudkin, Laura; Siminoff, Laura A.; Szapocznik, José; Thombs, Dennis L.; Torabi, Mohammad R.; Weiler, Robert M.; Wetle, Terrie; Williams, Phillip L.; Wykoff, Randy; Ying, Jun

doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30054-7

Cited by 16 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A large percentage of the reduction in cancer death rates since 1990 has come from preventive measures rather than treatment advances (114–117). For example, Thun and Jemal estimated that reduced tobacco use over the past four decades alone accounted for about 40% of the decrease in overall male cancer death rates from 1991 to 2003 (116).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2014, Featuring Survival

Jemal

Ward

Johnson³

et al. 2017

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

1,309

993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The American Cancer Society (ACS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) collaborate to provide annual updates on cancer occurrence and trends in the United States. This Annual Report highlights survival rates. Methods: Data were from the CDC- and NCI-funded population-based cancer registry programs and compiled by NAACCR. Trends in age-standardized incidence and death rates for all cancers combined and for the leading cancer types by sex were estimated by joinpoint analysis and expressed as annual percent change. We used relative survival ratios and adjusted relative risk of death after a diagnosis of cancer (hazard ratios [HRs]) using Cox regression model to examine changes or differences in survival over time and by sociodemographic factors. Results: Overall cancer death rates from 2010 to 2014 decreased by 1.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = –1.8 to –1.8) per year in men, by 1.4% (95% CI = –1.4 to –1.3) per year in women, and by 1.6% (95% CI = –2.0 to –1.3) per year in children. Death rates decreased for 11 of the 16 most common cancer types in men and for 13 of the 18 most common cancer types in women, including lung, colorectal, female breast, and prostate, whereas death rates increased for liver (men and women), pancreas (men), brain (men), and uterine cancers. In contrast, overall incidence rates from 2009 to 2013 decreased by 2.3% (95% CI = –3.1 to –1.4) per year in men but stabilized in women. For several but not all cancer types, survival statistically significantly improved over time for both early and late-stage diseases. Between 1975 and 1977, and 2006 and 2012, for example, five-year relative survival for distant-stage disease statistically significantly increased from 18.7% (95% CI = 16.9% to 20.6%) to 33.6% (95% CI = 32.2% to 35.0%) for female breast cancer but not for liver cancer (from 1.1%, 95% CI = 0.3% to 2.9%, to 2.3%, 95% CI = 1.6% to 3.2%). Survival varied by race/ethnicity and state. For example, the adjusted relative risk of death for all cancers combined was 33% (HR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.32 to 1.34) higher in non-Hispanic blacks and 51% (HR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.46 to 1.56) higher in non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native compared with non-Hispanic whites. Conclusions: Cancer death rates continue to decrease in the United States. However, progress in reducing death rates and improving survival is limited for several cancer types, underscoring the need for intensified efforts to discover new strategies for prevention, early detection, and treatment and to apply proven preventive measures broadly and equitably.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2014, Featuring Survival

Jemal

Ward

Johnson³

et al. 2017

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

1,309

993

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A previous study tested this hypothesis using 3D facial images and genetic variation in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region and found weak evidence to support this ( Zaidi et al, 2018 ). Other possible benefits that have been explored include: the fitness advantages of hair color ( Adhikari et al, 2016 ; Hysi et al, 2018 ), nasal shape and climate adaptation ( Zaidi et al, 2017 ) and the benefits of darker skin pigmentation ( Wilde et al, 2014 ; Aelion et al, 2016 ). Strong levels of phenotypic and genotypic spousal assortment have been previously demonstrated for height ( Robinson et al, 2017 ) and similar methods could be applied using facial phenotypes to explore the influences of facial morphology on mate choice.…”

Section: Understanding the Etiology Of Craniofacial Anomaliesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial Genetics: A Brief Overview

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, craniofacial genetic research has understandably focused on identifying the causes of craniofacial anomalies and it has only been within the last 10 years, that there has been a drive to detail the biological basis of normal-range facial variation. This initiative has been facilitated by the availability of low-cost hi-resolution three-dimensional systems which have the ability to capture the facial details of thousands of individuals quickly and accurately. Simultaneous advances in genotyping technology have enabled the exploration of genetic influences on facial phenotypes, both in the present day and across human history.There are several important reasons for exploring the genetics of normal-range variation in facial morphology. - Disentangling the environmental factors and relative parental biological contributions to heritable traits can help to answer the age-old question “why we look the way that we do?” - Understanding the etiology of craniofacial anomalies; e.g., unaffected family members of individuals with non-syndromic cleft lip/palate (nsCL/P) have been shown to differ in terms of normal-range facial variation to the general population suggesting an etiological link between facial morphology and nsCL/P. - Many factors such as ancestry, sex, eye/hair color as well as distinctive facial features (such as, shape of the chin, cheeks, eyes, forehead, lips, and nose) can be identified or estimated using an individual’s genetic data, with potential applications in healthcare and forensics. - Improved understanding of historical selection and adaptation relating to facial phenotypes, for example, skin pigmentation and geographical latitude. - Highlighting what is known about shared facial traits, medical conditions and genes.

show abstract

“…Large multinational consortium-driven proteogenomic studies will increasingly exploit the unique possibilities of synergizing genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic, and lipidomic datasets [236]. Thus, the 'cancer moonshot' program initiated by former US vice-president Joe Biden [237,238] led to the formation of the International Cancer Proteogenomics Consortium (ICPC), bringing together 'some of the world's leading cancer and proteogenomic research centers' in order to improve our understanding of cancer. Such large worldwide consortia hold a great potential, as they enable access to larger patient cohorts, complementary technologies, and improved data sharing.…”

Section: Five-year Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting post-translational modification signatures as potential biomarkers in clinical mass spectrometry

Mnatsakanyan

Shema

Basik

et al. 2018

Expert Review of Proteomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous diseases are caused by changes in post-translational modifications (PTMs). Therefore, the number of clinical proteomics studies that include the analysis of PTMs is increasing. Combining complementary information-for example changes in protein abundance, PTM levels, with the genome and transcriptome (proteogenomics)-holds great promise for discovering important drivers and markers of disease, as variations in copy number, expression levels, or mutations without spatial/functional/isoform information is often insufficient or even misleading. Areas covered: We discuss general considerations, requirements, pitfalls, and future perspectives in applying PTM-centric proteomics to clinical samples. This includes samples obtained from a human subject, for instance (i) bodily fluids such as plasma, urine, or cerebrospinal fluid, (ii) primary cells such as reproductive cells, blood cells, and (iii) tissue samples/biopsies. Expert commentary: PTM-centric discovery proteomics can substantially contribute to the understanding of disease mechanisms by identifying signatures with potential diagnostic or even therapeutic relevance but may require coordinated efforts of interdisciplinary and eventually multi-national consortia, such as initiated in the cancer moonshot program. Additionally, robust and standardized mass spectrometry (MS) assays-particularly targeted MS, MALDI imaging, and immuno-MALDI-may be transferred to the clinic to improve patient stratification for precision medicine, and guide therapies.

show abstract

The US Cancer Moonshot initiative

Cited by 16 publications

References 1 publication

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2014, Featuring Survival

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2014, Featuring Survival

Facial Genetics: A Brief Overview

Detecting post-translational modification signatures as potential biomarkers in clinical mass spectrometry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About