Here is a tweetorial from our latest publication in @Annals_Oncology about longitudinal tracking of esophageal adenocarcinoma. #OesophagealCancer #EsophagealCancer https://t.co/QWvrzBXmK7 1/8

We sequenced 245 plasma samples from 97 patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma using a 77 gene pan-cancer ctDNA panel. 2/8
Variants derived from previously characterised driver oesophageal adenocarcinoma genes had a significantly higher VAF than variants from other genes, indicating selection. 3/8
Peripheral blood cell samples were also sequenced for 78/97 patients. CHIP mutations were identified in 23% of cases, longitudinal tracking of CHIP variants suggested these variants were dynamic over time. 4/8
We found patients that were ctDNA positive post-surgery had a significantly poorer survival than ctDNA negative patients, and the elimination of CHIP variants improved the positive predictive value. 5/8
In summary, we demonstrate in a large, national, prospectively-collected dataset that ctDNA in plasma following surgery for EAC is prognostic for relapse. Inclusion of peripheral blood cell samples can reduce or eliminate false positives from CHIP. 6/8
In the future, post-operative ctDNA could be used to risk stratify patients into high- and low-risk groups for intensification or de-escalation of adjuvant chemotherapy. 7/8
Many thanks to our founders and all patients who participated within the OCCAMS consortium framework. The study was carried out by our brilliant PhD student Emma Ococks, medical oncologist @LizzySmyth1, postdoc @AFrankell, and postdoc @neus_snows among others @MRC_CU. 8/8
@threadreaderapp unroll please

More from Health

Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.


More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.

You May Also Like