Childhood Days : Song

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/4873/thumbnail.jp

The George-Anne

Performers: Joe DarcyPiano and Voice (with lyrics

Keep Your Chin Up, and Keep Eating : Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators to Healthful Dietary Behaviors Among Individuals With Gastrointestinal Cancer and Caregivers

BACKGROUND: This study explored perceptions of barriers and facilitators to healthful dietary behaviors among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and their caregivers, including caregiver preparedness, patient and caregiver self-efficacy for symptom management, and other environmental, social, and familial factors that may serve as barriers and facilitators to healthful eating. METHODS: Using a concurrent mixed methods cross-sectional study design, individuals with GI cancer receiving outpatient chemotherapy and their caregivers completed surveys, dietary assessments, and interviews. Caregiving preparedness, self-efficacy for symptom management, and dietary intake were assessed using validated instruments. Dietary quality was measured using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2020. In-depth interviews explored barriers and facilitators to healthful eating, symptom management, and caregiver preparedness. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patient-caregiver dyads completed study activities (N = 54). Dietary quality scores ranged from 26 to 81, with a median score of 43 for patients and 42 for caregivers. Thematic analysis identified three barriers to healthful eating: caregiver self-efficacy and preparedness, caregiver needs are neglected, and nutrition as a source of conflict. Overall self-efficacy scores (Mdn, [IQR]) were 69.1 (45.0) for caregivers and 75.6 (34.1) for patients. Caregiver preparedness score was 2.99 ± .87; problem areas were identified, including addressing emotional needs, fluctuating eating habits, advanced disease progression and making care activities pleasant. Despite the challenges, three main facilitators were identified: increased awareness and value of nutrition, influential others, and positive coping. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest the importance of developing interventions that increase nutrition-related preparedness among caregivers and self-efficacy for managing treatment side effects. Future research should continue to explore the relationship between positive coping and dietary behaviors. While engaging patients and caregivers together during dietary interventions is a promising modality, strategies for maintaining personal nutrition-related goals when facing contrasting priorities between patients and caregivers should be addressed

Metallized Plastic Current Collectors

Metallized plastic current collectors are an innovation patented by the Soteria Battery Innovation Group with the promise of isolating active material involved in an internal short by vaporizing and isolating the short from the rest of the cell electrode jellyroll or stack. Partnering with NREL, UCL, Coulometrics, and Soteria, NASA is leading a research effort into demonstrating the merits and understanding the phenomena of this safety innovation using prototype 18650 cylindrical cells vs control cells with standard metal foil current collectors. Cells with and without the plastic collector, with and without the on-demand internal short circuit device, and with polymer or cellulose separators were made. Safety evaluations were done with driving cells into thermal runaway (TR) with thermal and nail penetration triggers while inside our TR calorimeter and with ultra high speed X-ray videography provided at Synchrotrons. Preliminary results suggests that the thermally unstable plastic current collector innovation has great promise for preventing TR or reducing the severity of the TR output

Copy number variants as modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers

The risk of germline copy number variants (CNVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers in breast cancer is assessed, with CNVs overlapping SULT1A1 decreasing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.The contribution of germline copy number variants (CNVs) to risk of developing cancer in individuals with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants remains relatively unknown. We conducted the largest genome-wide analysis of CNVs in 15,342 BRCA1 and 10,740 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We used these results to prioritise a candidate breast cancer risk-modifier gene for laboratory analysis and biological validation. Notably, the HR for deletions in BRCA1 suggested an elevated breast cancer risk estimate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21), 95% confidence interval (95% CI = 1.09-1.35) compared with non-CNV pathogenic variants. In contrast, deletions overlapping SULT1A1 suggested a decreased breast cancer risk (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Functional analyses of SULT1A1 showed that reduced mRNA expression in pathogenic BRCA1 variant cells was associated with reduced cellular proliferation and reduced DNA damage after treatment with DNA damaging agents. These data provide evidence that deleterious variants in BRCA1 plus SULT1A1 deletions contribute to variable breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.Peer reviewe

Breast and Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Pathogenic Variant Carriers Using Polygenic Risk Scores

Background: Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods: 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results: PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions: Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.Peer reviewe

Polygenic risk scores and breast and epithelial ovarian cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants

Purpose We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks forBRCA1andBRCA2pathogenic variant carriers. Methods Retrospective cohort data on 18,935BRCA1and 12,339BRCA2female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. Results The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk forBRCA1carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33],P = 3x10(-72)). ForBRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36],P = 7x10(-50)). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk forBRCA1(HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40],P = 3x10(-22)) andBRCA2(HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60],P = 4x10(-12)) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. Conclusion Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks forBRCA1/2carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.Peer reviewe

A case-only study to identify genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Breast cancer (BC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers varies by genetic and familial factors. About 50 common variants have been shown to modify BC risk for mutation carriers. All but three, were identified in general population studies. Other mutation carrier-specific susceptibility variants may exist but studies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered. We conduct a novel case-only genome-wide association study comparing genotype frequencies between 60,212 general population BC cases and 13,007 cases with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We identify robust novel associations for 2 variants with BC for BRCA1 and 3 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, P < 10-8, at 5 loci, which are not associated with risk in the general population. They include rs60882887 at 11p11.2 where MADD, SP11 and EIF1, genes previously implicated in BC biology, are predicted as potential targets. These findings will contribute towards customising BC polygenic risk scores for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Transcriptome-wide association study of breast cancer risk by estrogen-receptor status

Previous transcriptome-wide association studies (TWAS) have identified breast cancer risk genes by integrating data from expression quantitative loci and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), but analyses of breast cancer subtype-specific associations have been limited. In this study, we conducted a TWAS using gene expression data from GTEx and summary statistics from the hitherto largest GWAS meta-analysis conducted for breast cancer overall, and by estrogen receptor subtypes (ER+ and ER-). We further compared associations with ER+ and ER- subtypes, using a case-only TWAS approach. We also conducted multigene conditional analyses in regions with multiple TWAS associations. Two genes, STXBP4 and HIST2H2BA, were specifically associated with ER+ but not with ER- breast cancer. We further identified 30 TWAS-significant genes associated with overall breast cancer risk, including four that were not identified in previous studies. Conditional analyses identified single independent breast-cancer gene in three of six regions harboring multiple TWAS-significant genes. Our study provides new information on breast cancer genetics and biology, particularly about genomic differences between ER+ and ER- breast cancer.Peer reviewe