American Association for Cancer Research

July 2008 CEBP Highlights

PDF Version for Printing pdf4.gif

Selected Articles from the July 1, 2008 Issue

The articles referenced in this Highlights section will be available online in HTML and PDF formats to all interested users at no charge until the next issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention is published. Click on the article title to view the complete article.

View the Table of Contents for the July 2008 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention


Colorectal Testing Rates Tied to Health Care Coverage

Shapiro et al.

Page 1623

Recommended colorectal cancer screening options include fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or colorectal endoscopy. Shapiro and colleagues found that colorectal cancer testing rates were particularly low among people without health-care coverage or without a usual source of health care. The most commonly reported reason for not having a colorectal cancer test was “never thought about it.” In 2005, about half of Americans ages ≥50 did not have appropriate colorectal cancer testing. Increased efforts to expand health-care coverage or to provide colorectal cancer tests to people without health care coverage are needed to increase colorectal cancer screening. 
 

Disparities in Smoking Cessation Persist

Fu et al.

Page 1640

Fu and colleagues examined racial/ethnic variation in the use of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and smoking quit ratios among Caucasian, African American, Asian, and Latino lifetime smokers ages 25 to 44 years. African Americans and Latinos were significantly less likely to report having ever used NRT for smoking cessation than Caucasians. These disparities persisted in multivariate analysis for African Americans but not for Latinos or Asians. As measured by the quit ratio, African Americans were less likely to have quit smoking than Caucasians. Future prospective studies are needed to assess whether lower utilization of cessation treatments such as NRT contribute to the observed disparity in quit ratios for African Americans. 


Multigene Model and Data Combined Predict Prostate Cancer Deaths

Mucci et al.

Page 1682

While prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer death, most men die with and not from their disease, underscoring the urgency to distinguish potentially lethal from indolent prostate cancer. Mucci and colleagues tested the prognostic value of a previously identified multigene signature to predict cancer-specific death. The best discrimination came from combining information from the multigene markers and clinical data, which perfectly classified the lowest risk stratum where no one developed lethal disease. Compared with the two lowest risk groups, the hazard ratio was 11.3 for the highest risk group and the difference in mortality at 15 years was 60%. 


Bartels and colleagues explored the limits of detection of chemopreventive efficacy by karyometric procedures in skin biopsies. The authors found that a 5 to 10% change in feature value due to chemopreventive intervention can be detected. However, efficacy in individual cases requires a change in feature values on the order of 10 to 15%. The authors concluded that karyometry provides a sensitive, quantitative method for the assessment of chemoprevention efficacy. The effects of within-case, biopsy-to-biopsy variance need to be considered only in the evaluation of efficacy in individual cases. 


Raloxifene Shows MRIV’s Potential as a Biomarker

Eng-Wong et al.

Page 1696

Mammographic density (MD) and breast MRI volume (MRIV) assess the amount of fibroglandular tissue in the breast. Wong and colleagues evaluated the effect of raloxifene on MD and MRIV in premenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer, and reported that no significant change in MD was seen after treatment with raloxifene. The authors found that in high-risk premenopausal women MD did not change after exposure to raloxifene, while MRIV significantly declined. Their findings suggest that MRIV is a promising surrogate biomarker in premenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer and should be investigated further in breast cancer prevention trials.


Top