Search

A new approach to cancer follow-up care is necessary to meet the needs of cancer survivors while dealing with increasing volume and provider shortages, knowledge gaps, and costs to both health care systems and patients. An approach that triages patients to personalized follow-up care pathways, depending on the type(s) and level(s) of resources needed for patients' long-term care, is in use in the United Kingdom and other countries and has been shown to meet patients' needs, more efficiently use the health care system, and reduce costs. Recognizing that testing and implementing a similar personalized approach to cancer follow-up care in the United States will require a multipronged strategy, the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a summit in January 2018 to identify the needed steps to move this work from concept to implementation. The summit identified 4 key strategies going forward: 1) developing a candidate model (or models) of care delivery; 2) building the case for implementation by conducting studies modeling the effects of personalized pathways of follow-up care on patient outcomes, workforce and health care resources, and utilization and costs; 3) creating consensus-based guidelines to guide the delivery of personalized care pathways; and 4) identifying and filling research gaps to develop and implement needed care changes. While these national strategies are pursued, oncology and primary care providers can lay the groundwork for implementation by assessing their patients' risk of recurrence and the chronic and late effects of cancer as well as other health care needs and resources available for care and by considering triaging patients accordingly, referring patients to appropriate specialized survivorship clinics as these are developed, helping to support patients who are capable of self-managing their health, setting expectations with patients from diagnosis onward for the need for follow-up in primary care and/or a survivorship clinic, and improving coordination of care between oncology and primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With mounting interest in translating genome-wide association study (GWAS) hits from large meta-analyses (meta-GWAS) in diverse clinical settings, evaluating their generalizability in target populations is crucial. Here, we consider long-term survivors of childhood cancers from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study, and we show the limited generalizability of 1,376 robust SNP associations reported in the general population across 12 complex anthropometric and cardiometabolic phenotypes (n = 2,231; observed-to-expected replication ratio = 0.70, p = 6.2 × 10−8). An examination of five comparable phenotypes in a second independent cohort of survivors from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study corroborated the overall limited generalizability of meta-GWAS hits to survivors (n = 4,212; observed-to-expected replication ratio = 0.55, p = 5.6 × 10−15). Finally, in direct comparisons of survivor samples against independent equivalently powered general population samples from the UK Biobank, we consistently observed lower meta-GWAS hit replication rates and poorer polygenic risk score predictive performance in survivor samples for multiple phenotypes. As a possible explanation, we found that meta-GWAS hits were less likely to be replicated in survivors who had been exposed to cancer therapies that are associated with phenotype risk. Examination of complementary DNA methylation data in a subset of survivors revealed that treatment-related methylation patterns at genomic sites linked to meta-GWAS hits may disrupt established genetic signals in survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]