Identification of 12 new susceptibility loci for different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer.

To identify common alleles associated with different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), we pooled data from multiple genome-wide genotyping projects totaling 25,509 EOC cases and 40,941 controls. We identified nine new susceptibility loci for different EOC histotypes: six for serous EOC histotypes (3q28, 4q32.3, 8q21.11, 10q24.33, 18q11.2 and 22q12.1), two for mucinous EOC (3q22.3 and 9q31.1) and one for endometrioid EOC (5q12.3). We then performed meta-analysis on the results for high-grade serous ovarian cancer with the results from analysis of 31,448 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 3,887 mutation carriers with EOC. This identified three additional susceptibility loci at 2q13, 8q24.1 and 12q24.31. Integrated analyses of genes and regulatory biofeatures at each locus predicted candidate susceptibility genes, including OBFC1, a new candidate susceptibility gene for low-grade and borderline serous EOC

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Oncologists’ end of life treatment decisions: How much does patient age matter?

Background: Optimal treatment decisions for older end-stage cancer patients are complicated, and are influenced by oncologists\u27 attitudes and beliefs about older patients. Nevertheless, few studies have explored oncologists\u27 perspectives on how patient age affects their treatment decisions. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 17 oncologists to examine factors that influence their chemotherapy decisions for adults with incurable cancer near death. Transcripts of recorded interviews were coded and content analyzed. Results: Oncologists identified patient age as a key factor in their chemotherapy decisions. They believed older adults were less likely to want or tolerate treatment, and felt highly motivated to treat younger patients. Discussion: Qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews resulted in a nuanced understanding of how patient age influences oncologists\u27 chemotherapy decisions. Such understanding may inform practice efforts aimed at enhancing cancer care at the end of life for older patients

The National Postdoctoral Palliative Care Research Training Collaborative: History, Activities, Challenges, and Future Goals

Background: Palliative care-related postdoctoral training opportunities are critical to increase the quantity and quality of palliative care research. Objective: To describe the history, activities, challenges, and future goals of the National Postdoctoral Palliative Care Research Training Collaborative. Design: National web-based survey of participating program leaders. Measurements: Information about participating programs, trainees, challenges faced, and future goals. Results: Nine participating programs at academic institutions across the United States focus on diverse aspects of palliative care research. The majority of 73 current and former fellows are female (75%) and white (84%). In total, 38% of fellows (n = 28) have MD backgrounds, of whom less than half (n = 12) completed hospice and palliative medicine fellowships. An additional 38% of fellows (n = 28) have nursing PhD backgrounds and 23% (n = 17) have other diverse types of PhD backgrounds. Key challenges relate to recruiting diverse trainees, fostering a shared identity, effectively advocating for trainees, and securing funding. Future goals include expanding efforts to engage clinician and nonclinician scientists, fostering the pipeline of palliative care researchers through expanded mentorship of predoctoral and clinical trainees, increasing the number of postdoctoral palliative care training programs, and expanding funding support for career development grants. Conclusion: The National Postdoctoral Palliative Care Research Training Collaborative fills an important role in creating a community for palliative care research trainees and developing strategies to address shared challenges