Advertisement

Human Genetics

, Volume 138, Issue 3, pp 287–289 | Cite as

A response to “Personalised medicine and population health: breast and ovarian cancer”

  • Antonis Antoniou
  • Hoda Anton-Culver
  • Alexander Borowsky
  • Mireille Broeders
  • Jennifer Brooks
  • Anna Chiarelli
  • Jocelyne Chiquette
  • Jack Cuzick
  • Suzette Delaloge
  • Peter Devilee
  • Michael Dorval
  • Douglas Easton
  • Andrea Eisen
  • Martin Eklund
  • Laurence Eloy
  • Laura EssermanEmail author
  • Montserrat Garcia-Closas
  • David Goldgar
  • Per Hall
  • Bartha Maria Knoppers
  • Peter Kraft
  • Andrea La Croix
  • Lisa Madalensky
  • Nasim Mavaddat
  • Nicole Mittman
  • Hermann Nabi
  • Olufunmilayo Olopade
  • Nora Pashayan
  • Marjanka Schmidt
  • Yiwey Shieh
  • Jacques Simard
  • Allison Stover-Fiscallini
  • Jeffrey A. Tice
  • Laura van’t Veer
  • Neil Wenger
  • Michael Wolfson
  • Christina Yau
  • Elad Ziv
Letter to the Editor
  • 134 Downloads

Introduction

Based on Dr. Narod’s assessment of the premise of personalized medicine in his review “Personalised medicine and population health: breast and ovarian cancer”, we invite him to learn more about the critical studies that are changing the landscape in screening and prevention. As a group of leaders of personalized medicine initiatives in breast cancer, we feel that it is critical to counter Dr. Narod’s pessimistic view of the opportunities for personalizing screening and prevention. In the neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment setting, we are making tremendous strides by understanding and tailoring treatment based on tumor risk, biology, and a better understanding of what can reduce risk using early endpoints. We have the same opportunity to revolutionize breast cancer screening by integrating the concepts of risk stratification, prevention, and early detection. We need an adaptive framework that facilitates continuous learning to maximize benefit, reduce costs, and,...

Notes

References

  1. Chlebowski RT, Hendrix SL, Langer RD et al (2003) Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women. JAMA 289:3243.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.24.3243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cuzick J, Warwick J, Pinney E et al (2011) Tamoxifen-induced reduction in mammographic density and breast cancer risk reduction: a nested case-control study. JNCI 103:744–752.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Esserman LJ (2017) The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate. npj Breast Cancer 3:34.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-017-0035-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Genome Canada (2018) Personalized risk assessment for prevention and early detection of breast cancer: Integration and Implementation. Genome Canada. In: genomecanada.ca. https://www.genomecanada.ca/en/personalized-risk-assessment-prevention-and-early-detection-breast-cancer-integration-and. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
  5. Li J, Humphreys K, Eriksson L et al (2013) Mammographic density reduction is a prognostic marker of response to adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:2249–2256.  https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.44.5015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nyante SJ, Sherman ME, Pfeiffer RM et al (2015) Prognostic significance of mammographic density change after initiation of tamoxifen for ER-positive breast cancer. JNCI.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju425 Google Scholar
  7. Pashayan N, Morris S, Gilbert FJ, Pharoah PDP (2018) Cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm ratio of risk-stratified screening for breast cancer: a life-table model. JAMA Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901 Google Scholar
  8. Ravdin PM, Cronin KA, Howlader N et al (2007) The decrease in breast-cancer incidence in 2003 in the United States. N Engl J Med 356:1670–1674.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr070105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rosenberg-Wohl S, Thygeson M, Stover Fiscalini A et al (2017) Private payer participation in coverage with evidence development: a case study. In: Health affairs. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2017/03/14/private-payer-participation-in-coverage-with-evidence-development-a-case-study/. Accessed 4 Apr 2017
  10. UK Department of Health & Social Care (2018) Prevention is better than cure: our vision to help you live well for longer. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevention-is-better-than-cure-our-vision-to-help-you-live-well-for-longer. Accessed 11 Nov 2018
  11. UNICANCER (2018) My Personalized breast screening (myPeBS). clinicaltrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03672331. Accessed 11 Nov 2018

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonis Antoniou
    • 1
  • Hoda Anton-Culver
    • 2
  • Alexander Borowsky
    • 3
  • Mireille Broeders
    • 4
  • Jennifer Brooks
    • 5
  • Anna Chiarelli
    • 5
  • Jocelyne Chiquette
    • 6
  • Jack Cuzick
    • 7
  • Suzette Delaloge
    • 8
  • Peter Devilee
    • 9
  • Michael Dorval
    • 6
  • Douglas Easton
    • 1
  • Andrea Eisen
    • 10
  • Martin Eklund
    • 11
  • Laurence Eloy
    • 6
  • Laura Esserman
    • 12
    Email author
  • Montserrat Garcia-Closas
    • 13
  • David Goldgar
    • 14
  • Per Hall
    • 11
  • Bartha Maria Knoppers
    • 15
  • Peter Kraft
    • 16
  • Andrea La Croix
    • 17
  • Lisa Madalensky
    • 17
  • Nasim Mavaddat
    • 1
  • Nicole Mittman
    • 18
  • Hermann Nabi
    • 6
  • Olufunmilayo Olopade
    • 19
  • Nora Pashayan
    • 20
  • Marjanka Schmidt
    • 21
  • Yiwey Shieh
    • 12
  • Jacques Simard
    • 6
  • Allison Stover-Fiscallini
    • 12
  • Jeffrey A. Tice
    • 12
  • Laura van’t Veer
    • 12
  • Neil Wenger
    • 22
  • Michael Wolfson
    • 23
  • Christina Yau
    • 12
  • Elad Ziv
    • 12
  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  4. 4.Radboud University Medical CenterNijmegenNetherlands
  5. 5.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  6. 6.Université LavalQuebec CityCanada
  7. 7.Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  8. 8.Institut Gustave RoussyVillejuifFrance
  9. 9.Leiden UniversityLeidenNetherlands
  10. 10.Sunnybrook Health Sciences CentreTorontoCanada
  11. 11.Karolinska InstituteStockholmSweden
  12. 12.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  13. 13.National Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  14. 14.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  15. 15.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  16. 16.Harvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  17. 17.University of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA
  18. 18.Sunnybrook Research InstituteTorontoCanada
  19. 19.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  20. 20.University College LondonLondonUK
  21. 21.Netherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  22. 22.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  23. 23.University of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations