Toward the identification of communities with increased tobacco-associated cancer burden: Application of spatial modeling techniques

Introduction: Smoking-attributable risks for lung, esophageal, and head and neck (H/N) cancers range from 54% to 90%. Identifying areas with higher than average cancer risk and smoking rates, then targeting those areas for intervention, is one approach to more rapidly lower the overall tobacco disease burden in a given state. Our research team used spatial modeling techniques to identify areas in Florida with higher than expected tobacco-associated cancer incidence clusters. Materials and Methods: Geocoded tobacco-associated incident cancer data from 1998 to 2002 from the Florida Cancer Data System were used. Tobacco-associated cancers included lung, esophageal, and H/N cancers. SaTScan was used to identify geographic areas that had statistically significant (P<0.10) excess age-adjusted rates of tobacco-associated cancers. The Poisson-based spatial scan statistic was used. Phi correlation coefficients were computed to examine associations among block groups with/without overlapping cancer clusters. The logistic regression was used to assess associations between county-level smoking prevalence rates and being diagnosed within versus outside a cancer cluster. Community-level smoking rates were obtained from the 2002 Florida Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Analyses were repeated using 2007 BRFSS to examine the consistency of associations. Results: Lung cancer clusters were geographically larger for both squamous cell and adenocarcinoma cases in Florida from 1998 to 2002, than esophageal or H/N clusters. There were very few squamous cell and adenocarcinoma esophageal cancer clusters. H/N cancer mapping showed some squamous cell and a very small amount of adenocarcinoma cancer clusters. Phi correlations were generally weak to moderate in strength. The odds of having an invasive lung cancer cluster increased by 12% per increase in the county-level smoking rate. Results were inconsistent for esophageal and H/N cancers, with some inverse associations. 2007 BRFSS data also showed a similar results pattern. Conclusions: Spatial analysis identified many nonoverlapping areas of high risk across both cancer and histological subtypes. Attempts to correlate county-level smoking rates with cancer cluster membership yielded consistent results only for lung cancer. However, spatial analyses may be most useful when examining incident clusters where several tobacco-associated cancer clusters overlap. Focusing on overlapping cancer clusters may help investigators identify priority areas for further screening, detailed assessments of tobacco use, and/or prevention and cessation interventions to decrease risk

Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma

We performed an integrated genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic characterization of 373 endometrial carcinomas using array- and sequencing-based technologies. Uterine serous tumours and ~25% of high-grade endometrioid tumours had extensive copy number alterations, few DNA methylation changes, low oestrogen receptor/progesterone receptor levels, and frequent TP53 mutations. Most endometrioid tumours had few copy number alterations or TP53 mutations, but frequent mutations in PTEN, CTNNB1, PIK3CA, ARID1A and KRAS and novel mutations in the SWI/SNF chromatin remodelling complex gene ARID5B. A subset of endometrioid tumours that we identified had a markedly increased transversion mutation frequency and newly identified hotspot mutations in POLE. Our results classified endometrial cancers into four categories: POLE ultramutated, microsatellite instability hypermutated, copy-number low, and copy-number high. Uterine serous carcinomas share genomic features with ovarian serous and basal-like breast carcinomas. We demonstrated that the genomic features of endometrial carcinomas permit a reclassification that may affect post-surgical adjuvant treatment for women with aggressive tumours.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143799-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143835-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143840-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143843-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143845-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143848-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143858-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143866-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143867-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143882-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA143883-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant 5U24CA144025-04)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U54HG003067-11)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U54HG003079-10)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant U54HG003273-10