The hundred person wellness project and Google’s baseline study: medical revolution or unnecessary and potentially harmful over-testing?

BMC Medicine

Eleftherios P Diamandis¹ 

[1] Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto M5T 3L9, Ontario, Canada

关键词: Population screening;    Over-treatment;    Over-diagnosis;    Indolent disease;    Incidental findings;    Cancer screening;   

Others  :  1118677
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-014-0239-6

 received in 2014-08-29, accepted in 2014-11-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

The Hundred Person Wellness Project is an ambitious pilot undertaking, which aims to intensely monitor 100 individuals over 10 months. Patients with abnormal findings will be treated, in hopes that this early intervention will avoid, or delay, symptomatic disease. Google’s “Baseline Study” is of similar scope and will enroll 10,000 people over 2 to 3 years. I here speculate that these approaches will likely not be effective in preventing disease, but instead, lead to unnecessary and potentially harmful interventions. Examples from the cancer screening experience over the last 30 years are provided, which show that intensive testing may uncover indolent disease or incidental findings which, when treated, may cause more harm than good. Additional examples show that aggressive treatments for cancer and other diseases do not always lead to better patient outcomes. I conclude that the recent advances in omics provide us with unprecedented opportunities for high content clinical testing, but such testing should be used with caution to avoid the harmful consequences of over-diagnosis and over-treatment. Despite the detailed rebuttals by Hood and colleagues in another commentary in BMC Medicine, time will show the actual benefits and harms of these ambitious initiatives.

Please see related commentary: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0238-7 webcite

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Diamandis; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Institute for Systems Biology: 100K Wellness Project. [http://research.systemsbiology.net/100k]
• [2]Gibbs WW: Medicine gets up close and personal. Nature 2014, 506:144-145.
• [3]Kaiser J: Google X Sets Out To Define Healthy Human. ScienceInsider 2014. [http://scim.ag/googlehuman]
• [4]Hood L, Lovejoy JC, Price N: Integrating big data and actionable health coaching to optimize wellness.BMC Medicine 2015 doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0238-7.
• [5]Wilcken B: Newborn screening: gaps in the evidence. Science 2013, 342:197-198.
• [6]Chrystoja CC, Diamandis EP: Whole genome sequencing as a diagnostic test: challenges and opportunities. Clin Chem 2014, 60:1-10.
• [7]Annas GD, Sherman E: 23andMe and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2014, 370:985-988.
• [8]Roberts NJ, Vogelstein JT, Parmigiani G, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Valculescu VE: The predictive capacity of personal genome sequencing. Sci Transl Med 2012, 4:133ra58.
• [9]Second Genome. [http://www.secondgenome.com]
• [10]Walsh CJ, Guinane CM, O'Toole PW, Cotter PD: Beneficial modulation of the gut microbiota.FEBS Lett 2014. S0014-5793(14)00254-3.
• [11]Schiffman M, Solomon D: Cervical–cancer screening with human papillomavirus and cytologic cotesting. N Engl J Med 2013, 369:2324-2331.
• [12]Levin TR, Corley DA: Colorectal cancer screening – coming of age. N Engl J Med 2013, 396:1164-1166.
• [13]Bleyer A, Welch HG: Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:1998-2005.
• [14]Biller-Andorno N, Juni P: Abolishing mammography screening programs. A view from the Swiss medical board. N Eng J Med 2014, 370:1965-1967.
• [15]Aberle DR, DeMello S, Berg CD, Black WC, Brewer B, Church TR, Clingan KL, Duan F, Fagerstrom RM, Gareen IF, Gatsonis CA, Gierada DS, Jain A, Jones GC, Mahon I, Marcus PM, Rathmell JM, Sicks J: National Lung Screening Trial Research Team: Results of the two incidence screenings in the national lunch screening trial. N Engl J Med 2013, 369:920-931.
• [16]Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Hallett R, Ryan A, Burnell M, Sharma A, Lewis S, Davies S, Philpott S, Lopes A, Godfrey K, Oram D, Herod J, Williamson K, Seif MW, Scott I, Mould T, Woolas R, Murdoch J, Dobbs S, Amso NN, Leeson S, Cruickshank D, McGuire A, Campbell S, Fallowfield L, Singh N, Dawnay A, Skates SJ, Parmar M, Jacobs I: Sensitivity and specificity of multimodal and ultrasound screening for ovarian cancer, and stage distribution of detected cancers: results of the prevalence screen of the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening (UKCTOCS). Lancet Oncol 2009, 10:327-340.
• [17]Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Lilja H, Zappa M, Denis LJ, Recker F, Páez A, Määttänen L, Bangma CH, Aus G, Carlsson S, Villers A, Rebillard X, van der Kwast T, Kujala PM, Blijenberg BG, Stenman UH, Huber A, Taari K, Hakama M, Moss SM, de Koning HJ, Auvinen A: ERSPC Investigators: Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012, 366:981-990. Erratum in: N Engl J Med 2012, 366:2137
• [18]Hayes JH, Barry MJ: Screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test: a review of current evidence. JAMA 2014, 311:1143-1149.
• [19]Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S, Gingrich JR, Wei JT, Gilhooly P, Grob BM, Nsouli I, Iyer P, Cartagena R, Snider G, Roehrborn C, Sharifi R, Blank W, Pandya P, Andriole GL, Culkin D, Wheeler T: Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) Study Group: Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:203-213.