Pathogenicity locus, core genome, and accessory gene contributions to Clostridium difficile virulence

Clostridium difficile is a spore-forming anaerobic bacterium that causes colitis in patients with disrupted colonic microbiota. While some individuals are asymptomatic C. difficile carriers, symptomatic disease ranges from mild diarrhea to potentially lethal toxic megacolon. The wide disease spectrum has been attributed to the infected host’s age, underlying diseases, immune status, and microbiome composition. However, strain-specific differences in C. difficile virulence have also been implicated in determining colitis severity. Because patients infected with C. difficile are unique in terms of medical history, microbiome composition, and immune competence, determining the relative contribution of C. difficile virulence to disease severity has been challenging, and conclusions regarding the virulence of specific strains have been inconsistent. To address this, we used a mouse model to test 33 clinical C. difficile strains isolated from patients with disease severities ranging from asymptomatic carriage to severe colitis, and we determined their relative in vivo virulence in genetically identical, antibiotic-pretreated mice. We found that murine infections with C. difficile clade 2 strains (including multilocus sequence type 1/ribotype 027) were associated with higher lethality and that C. difficile strains associated with greater human disease severity caused more severe disease in mice. While toxin production was not strongly correlated with in vivo colonic pathology, the ability of C. difficile strains to grow in the presence of secondary bile acids was associated with greater disease severity. Whole-genome sequencing and identification of core and accessory genes identified a subset of accessory genes that distinguish high-virulence from lower-virulence C. difficile strains

Bannayan Ruvalcaba Riley Syndrome

A 63-year-old male with history of prostate cancer treated with radiation presented for a colonoscopy for small volume hematochezia. The colonoscopy revealed numerous polyps, which were found to be ganglioneuromas on histological examination. He was referred to medical genetics with suspicion for hamartomatous polyposis syndrome and was found to have a mutation in the PTEN gene. Based on this and suggestive clinical findings, he was diagnosed with Bannayan Ruvalcaba Riley syndrome

Evidence-based Target Recall Rates for Screening Mammography 1

PURPOSE: To retrospectively identify target recall rates for screening mammography on the basis of how sensitivity shifts with recall rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study group included 1 872 687 subsequent and 171 104 first screening mammograms from 1996 to 2001 from 172 and 139 facilities, respectively, in six sites of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained from each site. Informed consent requirements of the IRBs were followed. The study was HIPAA compliant. Recall rate was defined as the percentage of screening studies for which further work-up was recommended by the radiologist. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of cancers that were detected at screening mammography. Piecewise linear regression was used to model sensitivity as a function of recall rate. This model allows detection of critical recall rates in which significant changes (shifts) occurred in the rates that sensitivity increased with increasing recall rate. Rates were interpreted as number of additional work-ups per additional cancer detected (AW/ACD) or, in other words, the estimated number of additional women needed to be recalled at a given rate to detect one additional cancer. RESULTS: For first mammograms, a single shift in the estimated AW/ACD rate occurred at a recall rate of 10.0%, with the rate jumping dramatically from 35 to 172. For subsequent mammograms, four shifts were identified. At a recall rate of 6.7%, the estimated AW/ACD increased from 80 to 132, which rendered it the highest desirable target recall rate. At a recall rate of 12.3%, the estimated AW/ACD was 304, which suggests little benefit for any higher recall rate. CONCLUSION: Recall rates of 10.0% for first and 6.7% for subsequent mammograms are recommended targets on the basis of their AW/ACD rates (less than 100)