Author
Wylie Burke
Other affiliations: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington Medical Center, Group Health Cooperative ...read more
Bio: Wylie Burke is an academic researcher from University of Washington. The author has contributed to research in topics: Genetic testing & Health care. The author has an hindex of 69, co-authored 331 publications receiving 22818 citations. Previous affiliations of Wylie Burke include Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center & University of Washington Medical Center.
Topics: Genetic testing, Health care, Population, Cancer, Public health
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
American Cancer Society1, University of Washington2, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences3, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust4, University of Washington Medical Center5, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center6, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill7, University of Pennsylvania8, Northwestern University9, University of Toronto10, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre11, University of Southern California12
TL;DR: There are several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend for or against screening, including women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography.
Abstract: New evidence on breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) screening has become available since the American Cancer Society (ACS) last issued guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer in 2003. A guideline panel has reviewed this evidence and developed new recommendations for women at different defined levels of risk. Screening MRI is recommended for women with an approximately 20-25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer, including women with a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer and women who were treated for Hodgkin disease. There are several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend for or against screening, including women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography. Diagnostic uses of MRI were not considered to be within the scope of this review.
2,332 citations
••
15 Apr 2010
TL;DR: Systematic studies of more than 25,000 cancer genomes will reveal the repertoire of oncogenic mutations, uncover traces of the mutagenic influences, define clinically relevant subtypes for prognosis and therapeutic management, and enable the development of new cancer therapies.
Abstract: The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) was launched to coordinate large-scale cancer genome studies in tumours from 50 different cancer types and/or subtypes that are of clinical and societal importance across the globe. Systematic studies of more than 25,000 cancer genomes at the genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic levels will reveal the repertoire of oncogenic mutations, uncover traces of the mutagenic influences, define clinically relevant subtypes for prognosis and therapeutic management, and enable the development of new cancer therapies.
2,041 citations
••
Constantine A. Gatsonis1, Denise R. Aberle2, Christine D. Berg, William C. Black3 +1333 more•Institutions (31)
TL;DR: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is a randomized multicenter study comparing low-dose helical computed tomography with chest radiography in the screening of older current and former heavy smokers for early detection of lung cancer.
Abstract: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) is a randomized multicenter study comparing low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) with chest radiography in the screening of older current and former heavy smokers for early detection of lung cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States Five-year survival rates approach 70% with surgical resection of stage IA disease; however, more than 75% of individuals have incurable locally advanced or metastatic disease, the latter having a 5-year survival of less than 5% It is plausible that treatment should be more effective and the likelihood of death decreased if asymptomatic lung cancer is detected through screening early enough in its preclinical phase For these reasons, there is intense interest and intuitive appeal in lung cancer screening with low-dose CT The use of survival as the determinant of screening effectiveness is, however, confounded by the well-described biases of lead time, length, and overdiagnosis Despite previous attempts, no test has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality, an endpoint that circumvents screening biases and provides a definitive measure of benefit when assessed in a randomized controlled trial that enables comparison of mortality rates between screened individuals and a control group that does not undergo the screening intervention of interest The NLST is such a trial The rationale for and design of the NLST are presented
1,036 citations
••
TL;DR: It is recommended that individuals considering genetic testing be counseled regarding the unknown efficacy of measures to reduce risk and that care for individuals with cancer-predisposing mutations be provided whenever possible within the context of research protocols designed to evaluate clinical outcomes.
Abstract: Objective. —To provide recommendations for cancer surveillance and risk reduction for individuals carrying mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. Participants. —A task force with expertise in medical genetics, oncology, primary care, gastroenterology, and epidemiology convened by the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (CGSC), organized by National Human Genome Research Institute (previously the National Center for Human Genome Research). Evidence. —Studies evaluating cancer risk, surveillance, and risk reduction in individuals genetically susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer were identified using MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine) and from bibliographies of articles thus identified. Indexing terms used were "genetics" in combination with "breast cancer," "ovarian cancer," and "screening," or "surveillance" in combination with "cancer family" and " BRCA1 " and " BRCA2 ." For studies evaluating specific interventions, quality of evidence was assessed using criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Consensus Process. —The task force developed recommendations through discussions over a 14-month period. Conclusions. —Efficacy of cancer surveillance or other measures to reduce risk in individuals who carry cancer-predisposing mutations is unknown. Based on expert opinion concerning presumptive benefit, early breast cancer and ovarian cancer screening are recommended for individuals with BRCA1 mutations and early breast cancer screening for those with BRCA2 mutations. No recommendation is made for or against prophylactic surgery (eg, mastectomy, oophorectomy); these surgeries are an option for mutation carriers, but evidence of benefit is lacking, and case reports have documented the occurrence of cancer following prophylactic surgery. It is recommended that individuals considering genetic testing be counseled regarding the unknown efficacy of measures to reduce risk and that care for individuals with cancer-predisposing mutations be provided whenever possible within the context of research protocols designed to evaluate clinical outcomes.
977 citations
••
TL;DR: It is recommended that individuals considering genetic testing be counseled regarding the unknown efficacy of measures to reduce risk and that care for individuals with cancer-predisposing mutations be provided whenever possible within the context of research protocols designed to evaluate clinical outcomes.
Abstract: Objective. —To provide recommendations for cancer surveillance and risk reduction for individuals carrying mutations associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC). Participants. —A task force with expertise in medical genetics, oncology, primary care, gastroenterology, and epidemiology convened by the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (CGSC), organized by the National Human Genome Research Institute (previously the National Center for Human Genome Research). Evidence. —Studies evaluating cancer risk, surveillance, and risk reduction in individuals genetically susceptible to colon cancer were identified using MEDLINE and bibliographies of articles thus identified. Indexing terms used were "genetics" in combination with "colon cancer," and "screening" in combination with "cancer family" and "HNPCC." For studies evaluating specific interventions, quality of evidence was assessed using criteria of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Consensus Process. —The task force developed recommendations through discussions over a 14-month period. Conclusions. —Efficacy of cancer surveillance or other measures to reduce risk in individuals who carry cancer-predisposing mutations is unknown. Based on observational studies, colonoscopy every 1 to 3 years starting at age 25 years is recommended for individuals known to have HNPCC-associated mutations. Endometrial cancer screening is also recommended, based on expert opinion concerning presumptive benefit. No recommendation is made for or against prophylactic surgery (ie, colectomy, hysterectomy); these surgeries are an option for mutation carriers, but evidence of benefit is lacking. It is recommended that individuals considering genetic testing be counseled regarding the unknown efficacy of measures to reduce risk and that care for individuals with cancer-predisposing mutations be provided whenever possible within the context of research protocols designed to evaluate clinical outcomes.
693 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: The cBio Cancer Genomics Portal significantly lowers the barriers between complex genomic data and cancer researchers who want rapid, intuitive, and high-quality access to molecular profiles and clinical attributes from large-scale cancer genomics projects and empowers researchers to translate these rich data sets into biologic insights and clinical applications.
Abstract: The cBio Cancer Genomics Portal (http://cbioportal.org) is an open-access resource for interactive exploration of multidimensional cancer genomics data sets, currently providing access to data from more than 5,000 tumor samples from 20 cancer studies. The cBio Cancer Genomics Portal significantly lowers the barriers between complex genomic data and cancer researchers who want rapid, intuitive, and high-quality access to molecular profiles and clinical attributes from large-scale cancer genomics projects and empowers researchers to translate these rich data sets into biologic insights and clinical applications.
11,912 citations
••
TL;DR: A practical guide to the analysis and visualization features of the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics, which makes complex cancer genomics profiles accessible to researchers and clinicians without requiring bioinformatics expertise, thus facilitating biological discoveries.
Abstract: The cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics (http://cbioportal.org) provides a Web resource for exploring, visualizing, and analyzing multidimensional cancer genomics data. The portal reduces molecular profiling data from cancer tissues and cell lines into readily understandable genetic, epigenetic, gene expression, and proteomic events. The query interface combined with customized data storage enables researchers to interactively explore genetic alterations across samples, genes, and pathways and, when available in the underlying data, to link these to clinical outcomes. The portal provides graphical summaries of gene-level data from multiple platforms, network visualization and analysis, survival analysis, patient-centric queries, and software programmatic access. The intuitive Web interface of the portal makes complex cancer genomics profiles accessible to researchers and clinicians without requiring bioinformatics expertise, thus facilitating biological discoveries. Here, we provide a practical guide to the analysis and visualization features of the cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics.
10,947 citations
••
Northern Arizona University1, National Institutes of Health2, University of Minnesota3, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution4, University of California, Davis5, Massachusetts Institute of Technology6, University of Copenhagen7, University of Trento8, Chinese Academy of Sciences9, University of California, San Francisco10, University of Pennsylvania11, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory12, North Carolina State University13, University of California, San Diego14, Institute for Systems Biology15, Dalhousie University16, University of British Columbia17, Statens Serum Institut18, Anschutz Medical Campus19, University of Washington20, Michigan State University21, Stanford University22, Broad Institute23, Harvard University24, Australian National University25, University of Düsseldorf26, University of New South Wales27, Sookmyung Women's University28, San Diego State University29, Howard Hughes Medical Institute30, Cornell University31, Max Planck Society32, Colorado State University33, Google34, Syracuse University35, Webster University36, United States Department of Agriculture37, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences38, Colorado School of Mines39, University of Southern Mississippi40, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration41, University of California, Merced42, Wageningen University and Research Centre43, University of Arizona44, Environment Agency45, University of Florida46, Merck & Co.47
TL;DR: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and R.K.P. and partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 and U54MD012388.
Abstract: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and 1565057 to R.K. Partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 (J.G.C. and T.P.) and U54MD012388 (J.G.C. and T.P.); grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (J.G.C. and R.K.); ERCSTG project MetaPG (N.S.); the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences QYZDB-SSW-SMC021 (Y.B.); the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council APP1085372 (G.A.H., J.G.C., Von Bing Yap and R.K.); the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) to D.L.G.; and the State of Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), administered by the Arizona Board of Regents, through Northern Arizona University. All NCI coauthors were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. S.M.G. and C. Diener were supported by the Washington Research Foundation Distinguished Investigator Award.
8,821 citations
••
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute1, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, Wellcome Trust3, University of British Columbia4, University of Cambridge5, The Breast Cancer Research Foundation6, Oslo University Hospital7, University of Oslo8, University of Münster9, Université libre de Bruxelles10, German Cancer Research Center11, University of Iceland12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, French Institute of Health and Medical Research14, Paris Descartes University15, University of Paris16, Broad Institute17, University of Bergen18, University of Oviedo19, University of Queensland20, University of Glasgow21, Harvard University22, United States Department of Veterans Affairs23, Netherlands Cancer Institute24, University of Kiel25, Radboud University Nijmegen26, King's College London27, Curie Institute28, Bankstown Lidcombe Hospital29, University of New South Wales30, University of Barcelona31
TL;DR: It is shown that hypermutation localized to small genomic regions, ‘kataegis’, is found in many cancer types, and this results reveal the diversity of mutational processes underlying the development of cancer.
Abstract: All cancers are caused by somatic mutations; however, understanding of the biological processes generating these mutations is limited. The catalogue of somatic mutations from a cancer genome bears the signatures of the mutational processes that have been operative. Here we analysed 4,938,362 mutations from 7,042 cancers and extracted more than 20 distinct mutational signatures. Some are present in many cancer types, notably a signature attributed to the APOBEC family of cytidine deaminases, whereas others are confined to a single cancer class. Certain signatures are associated with age of the patient at cancer diagnosis, known mutagenic exposures or defects in DNA maintenance, but many are of cryptic origin. In addition to these genome-wide mutational signatures, hypermutation localized to small genomic regions, 'kataegis', is found in many cancer types. The results reveal the diversity of mutational processes underlying the development of cancer, with potential implications for understanding of cancer aetiology, prevention and therapy.
7,904 citations
••
TL;DR: Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer, as compared with the radiography group, and the rate of death from any cause was reduced.
Abstract: Background The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screening, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer. Methods From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to undergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or single-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. Results The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screening tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23). There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group, representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P=0.004). The rate of death from any cause was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group, by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P=0.02). Conclusions Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047385.).
7,710 citations