How Contemporary Human Reproductive Behaviors Influence the Role of Fertility-Related Genes: The Example of the P53 Gene

Studies on human fertility genes have identified numerous risk/protective alleles involved in the occurrence of reproductive system diseases causing infertility or subfertility. Investigations we carried out in populations at natural fertility seem to suggest that the clinical relevance that some fertility genes are now acquiring depends on their interaction with contemporary reproductive behaviors (birth control, delayed childbearing, and spacing birth order, among others). In recent years, a new physiological role in human fertility regulation has emerged for the tumor- suppressor p53 gene (P53), and the P53 Arg72Pro polymorphism has been associated with recurrent implantation failure in humans. To lend support to our previous observations, we examined the impact of Arg72Pro polymorphism on fertility in two samples of Italian women not selected for impaired fertility but collected from populations with different (premodern and modern) reproductive behaviors. Among the women at near-natural fertility (n = 98), the P53 genotypes were not associated with different reproductive efficiency, whereas among those with modern reproductive behaviors (n = 68), the P53 genotypes were associated with different mean numbers of children [Pro/Pro = 0.75<Pro/Arg = 1.7<Arg/Arg = 2, (p = 0.056)] and a significant negative relationship between the number of children and P53 Pro allele frequencies (p = 0.028) was observed. These results are consistent with those of clinical studies reporting an association between the P53 Pro allele and recurrent implantation failure. By combining these findings with previous ones, we suggest here that some common variants of fertility genes may have become “detrimental” following exposure to modern reproductive patterns and might therefore be associated with reduced reproductive success. Set within an evolutionary framework, this change could lead to the selection of a set of gene variants fitter to current reproductive behaviors as the shift to later child-bearing age in developed countries

Surviving hypopharynx-larynx carcinoma in the era of IMRT

PURPOSE: Outcome in locoregionally advanced laryngeal carcinoma and hypopharyngeal carcinoma after conventional radiation techniques is known for modest disease control and considerable late toxicity. Considering the lack of standardization in prescription dose for intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), we aimed to compare the results after our methods of simultaneously integrated boost IMRT with published results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between March 2002 and December 2008, 65 hypopharyngeal, 31 supraglottic, and 27 locoregionally advanced glottic tumor patients underwent definitive IMRT (with simultaneous chemotherapy in 86%). Of these, 64% presented with locoregionally advanced disease. Mean follow-up was 26 months (range, 3-83 months), with a median of 21 months. Treatment (2.0-2.2Gy per fraction, 66-72.6Gy) followed a prospectively defined protocol. If the boost volume included more than half of the larynx or a substantial part of the pharynx, dose was limited to 2.0Gy per fraction. RESULTS: The 2-year local, nodal, and locoregional control (LRC) rates for the entire cohort were 82%, 90%, and 77%, respectively; the disease-free and overall survival rates were 75% and 83%, respectively. The ultimate 2-year LRC rate, including salvage surgery, was 86%. Laryngectomy was required in 2 LRC patients needing tracheostoma already before; 2 further LRC patients needed tracheostomy before IMRT and remained tracheostoma dependent, and 3 patients remained feeding tube dependent after IMRT. Salvage laryngectomy was successful in 8 of 11. Of all 123 patients, 91 patients (74%) are locoregionally controlled and live with a functional laryngopharynx. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneously integrated boost IMRT with limited acceptance of dose inhomogeneity resulted in very satisfactory disease control despite a slight left shift of planning target volume curves on the dose-volume histogram. Considering the treatment tolerance, a careful increase in dose in our patients seems possible. Dose-volume comparisons remain difficult because no international standards have been defined for contouring and volume-related dose distribution