Bone mineral density in Jamaican men on androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been reported to reduce the bone mineral density (BMD) in men with prostate cancer (CaP). However, Afro-Caribbeans are under-represented in most studies. The aim was to determine the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on the bone mineral density (BMD) of men with prostate cancer in Jamaica.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study consisted of 346 Jamaican men, over 40 years of age: 133 ADT treated CaP cases (group 1), 43 hormone-naïve CaP controls (group 2) and 170 hormone naïve controls without CaP (group 3). Exclusion criteria included metastatic disease, bisphosphonate therapy or metabolic disease affecting BMD. BMD was measured with a calcaneal ultrasound and expressed in S.D. units relative to young adult men (T score), according to the World Health Organization definition. Patient weight, height and BMI were assessed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean ± sd, age of patients in group 1 (75± 7.4 yrs) was significantly greater than groups 2 and 3 (67 ± 8.1 yrs; 65±12.0 yrs). There was no significant difference in weight and BMI between the 3 groups. . The types of ADT (% of cases, median duration in months with IQR) included LHRH (Luteinizing hormone releasing hormone) analogues (28.6%, 17.9, IQR 20.4), oestrogens (9.8%, 60.5, IQR 45.6) anti-androgens (11.3%, 3.3, IQR 15.2) and orchiectomy (15.7%, 43.4, IQR 63.9). Unadjusted t score of group 1, mean ± sd, (-1.6± 1.5) was significantly less than group 2 (-0.9±1.1) and group 3 (-0.7±1.4), p <0.001. Ninety three (69.9%), 20 (45%) and 75 (42%) of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively were classified as either osteopenic or osteoporotic (p<0.001). Adjusting for age, there was a significant difference in t scores between groups 1 and 2 as well as between groups 1 and 3 (p<0.001). Compared with oestrogen therapy and adjusting for duration of therapy, the odds of low bone mineral density (osteopenia or osteoporosis) with LHRH analogue was 4.5 (95%CI, 14.3 to 3.4); with anti-androgens was 5.9 (95%CI, 32.7 to 5); with orchiectomy was 7.3 (95%CI, 30 to 5.8) and multiple drugs was 9.2 ((95%CI, 31 to 7.1).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>ADT is associated with lower BMD in Jamaican men on hormonal therapy for prostate cancer.</p

A pragmatic approach for integrating molecular tools into biodiversity conservation

Molecular tools are increasingly applied for assessing and monitoring biodiversity and informing conservation action. While recent developments in genetic and genomic methods provide greater sensitivity in analysis and the capacity to address new questions, they are not equally available to all practitioners: There is considerable bias across institutions and countries in access to technologies, funding, and training. Consequently, in many cases, more accessible traditional genetic data (e.g., microsatellites) are still utilized for making conservation decisions. Conservation approaches need to be pragmatic by tackling clearly defined management questions and using the most appropriate methods available, while maximizing the use of limited resources. Here we present some key questions to consider when applying the molecular toolbox for accessible and actionable conservation management. Finally, we highlight a number of important steps to be addressed in a collaborative way, which can facilitate the broad integration of molecular data into conservation

The coalition for conservation genetics: Working across organizations to build capacity and achieve change in policy and practice

Abstract The Coalition for Conservation Genetics (CCG) brings together four eminent organizations with the shared goal of improving the integration of genetic information into conservation policy and practice. We provide a historical context of conservation genetics as a field and reflect on current barriers to conserving genetic diversity, highlighting the need for collaboration across traditional divides, international partnerships, and coordinated advocacy. We then introduce the CCG and illustrate through examples how a coalition approach can leverage complementary expertise and improve the organizational impact at multiple levels. The CCG has proven particularly successful at implementing large synthesis-type projects, training early-career scientists, and advising policy makers. Achievements to date highlight the potential for the CCG to make effective contributions to practical conservation policy and management that no one “parent” organization could achieve on its own. Finally, we reflect on the lessons learned through forming the CCG, and our vision for the future

Bringing together approaches to reporting on within species genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is one of the three main levels of biodiversity recognised in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Fundamental for species adaptation to environmental change, genetic diversity is nonetheless under-reported within global and national indicators. When it is reported, the focus is often narrow and confined to domesticated or other commercial species. Several approaches have recently been developed to address this shortfall in reporting on genetic diversity of wild species. While multiplicity of approaches is helpful in any development process, it can also lead to confusion among policy makers and heighten a perception that conservation genetics is too abstract to be of use to organisations and governments. As the developers of five of the different approaches, we have come together to explain how various approaches relate to each other and propose a scorecard, as a unifying reporting mechanism for genetic diversity. Policy implications. We believe the proposed combined approach captures the strengths of its components and is practical for all nations and subnational governments. It is scalable and can be used to evaluate species conservation projects as well as genetic conservation projects