Critical research gaps and recommendations to inform research prioritisation for more effective prevention and improved outcomes in colorectal cancer.
Loading...
Embargo End Date
ICR Authors
Authors
Lawler, M
Alsina, D
Adams, RA
Anderson, AS
Brown, G
Fearnhead, NS
Fenwick, SW
Halloran, SP
Hochhauser, D
Hull, MA
Koelzer, VH
McNair, AGK
Monahan, KJ
Näthke, I
Norton, C
Novelli, MR
Steele, RJC
Thomas, AL
Wilde, LM
Wilson, RH
Tomlinson, I
Bowel Cancer UK Critical Research Gaps in Colorectal Cancer Initiative,
Alsina, D
Adams, RA
Anderson, AS
Brown, G
Fearnhead, NS
Fenwick, SW
Halloran, SP
Hochhauser, D
Hull, MA
Koelzer, VH
McNair, AGK
Monahan, KJ
Näthke, I
Norton, C
Novelli, MR
Steele, RJC
Thomas, AL
Wilde, LM
Wilson, RH
Tomlinson, I
Bowel Cancer UK Critical Research Gaps in Colorectal Cancer Initiative,
Document Type
Journal Article
Date
2018-01-01
Date Accepted
2017-10-25
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) leads to significant morbidity/mortality worldwide. Defining critical research gaps (RG), their prioritisation and resolution, could improve patient outcomes. DESIGN: RG analysis was conducted by a multidisciplinary panel of patients, clinicians and researchers (n=71). Eight working groups (WG) were constituted: discovery science; risk; prevention; early diagnosis and screening; pathology; curative treatment; stage IV disease; and living with and beyond CRC. A series of discussions led to development of draft papers by each WG, which were evaluated by a 20-strong patient panel. A final list of RGs and research recommendations (RR) was endorsed by all participants. RESULTS: Fifteen critical RGs are summarised below: RG1: Lack of realistic models that recapitulate tumour/tumour micro/macroenvironment; RG2: Insufficient evidence on precise contributions of genetic/environmental/lifestyle factors to CRC risk; RG3: Pressing need for prevention trials; RG4: Lack of integration of different prevention approaches; RG5: Lack of optimal strategies for CRC screening; RG6: Lack of effective triage systems for invasive investigations; RG7: Imprecise pathological assessment of CRC; RG8: Lack of qualified personnel in genomics, data sciences and digital pathology; RG9: Inadequate assessment/communication of risk, benefit and uncertainty of treatment choices; RG10: Need for novel technologies/interventions to improve curative outcomes; RG11: Lack of approaches that recognise molecular interplay between metastasising tumours and their microenvironment; RG12: Lack of reliable biomarkers to guide stage IV treatment; RG13: Need to increase understanding of health related quality of life (HRQOL) and promote residual symptom resolution; RG14: Lack of coordination of CRC research/funding; RG15: Lack of effective communication between relevant stakeholders. CONCLUSION: Prioritising research activity and funding could have a significant impact on reducing CRC disease burden over the next 5 years.
Citation
Gut, 2018, 67 (1), pp. 179 - 193
Source Title
Publisher
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
ISSN
0017-5749
eISSN
1468-3288
Collections
Research Team
Cancer Genomics
Translational Oncogenomics
Translational Oncogenomics