MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-item electronic survey was sent to two research committee members from the 14 representative national radiation oncology organizations (N = 28) that are a part of FARO.
RESULTS: Thirteen of the 14 member organizations (93%) and 20 of 28 members (71.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Only 50% of the members stated that an active research environment existed in their country. Retrospective audits (80%) and observational studies (75%) were the most common type of research conducted in these centers. Lack of time (80%), lack of funding (75%), and limited training in research methodology (40%) were cited as the most common hindrances in conducting research. To promote research initiatives in the collaborative setting, 95% of the members agreed to the creation of site-specific groups, with head and neck (45%) and gynecological cancers (25%) being the most preferred disease sites. Projects focused on advanced external beam radiotherapy implementation (40%), and cost-effectiveness studies (35%) were cited as some of the potential areas for future collaboration. On the basis of the survey results, after result discussion and the FARO officers meeting, an action plan for the research committee has been created.
CONCLUSION: The results from the survey and the initial policy structure may allow facilitation of radiation oncology research in the collaborative setting. Centralization of research activities, funding support, and research-directed training are underway to help foster a successful research environment in the FARO region.
METHODS: PRS performance was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
RESULTS: Both European and Asian PRSs performed worse in H/L samples compared to original reports. The best European PRS performed better than the best Asian PRS in pooled H/L samples. European PRSs had decreased performance with increasing Indigenous American (IA) ancestry while Asian PRSs had increased performance with increasing IA ancestry. The addition of 2 H/L SNPs increased performance for all PRSs, most notably in the samples with high IA ancestry and did not impact the performance of PRSs in individuals with lower IA ancestry.
CONCLUSIONS: A single PRS that incorporates risk variants relevant to the multiple ancestral components of individuals from Latin America, instead of a set of ancestry specific panels, could be used in clinical practice.
IMPACT: Results highlight the importance of population-specific discovery and suggest a straightforward approach to integrate ancestry specific variants into PRS for clinical application.