Predictors of Recurrent Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source in the RE‐SPECT ESUS Trial

Risk factors; Secondary prevention; Stroke predictorsFactores de riesgo; Prevención secundaria; Predictores de accidentes cerebrovascularesFactors de risc; Prevenció secundària; Predictors d'accidents cerebrovascularsBackground We sought to determine recurrent stroke predictors among patients with embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS). Methods and Results We applied Cox proportional hazards models to identify clinical features associated with recurrent stroke among participants enrolled in RE‐SPECT ESUS (Randomized, Double‐Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, an international clinical trial evaluating dabigatran versus aspirin for patients with ESUS. During a median follow‐up of 19 months, 384 of 5390 participants had recurrent stroke (annual rate, 4.5%). Multivariable models revealed that stroke or transient ischemic attack before the index event (hazard ratio [HR], 2.27 [95% CI, 1.83–2.82]), creatinine clearance <50 mL/min (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.23–2.32]), male sex (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.27–2.02]), and CHA2DS2‐VASc ≥4 (HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.15–2.08] and HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.21–2.26] for scores of 4 and ≥5, respectively) versus CHA2DS2‐VASc of 2 to 3, were independent predictors for recurrent stroke. Conclusions In RE‐SPECT ESUS trial, expected risk factors previously linked to other common stroke causes were associated with stroke recurrence. These data help define high‐risk groups for subsequent stroke that may be useful for clinicians and for researchers designing trials among patients with ESUS.This study was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim

Challenges and Opportunities: What Can We Learn from Patients Living with Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions, Health Professionals and Carers about the Concept of Health Literacy Using Qualitative Methods of Inquiry?

The field of health literacy continues to evolve and concern public health researchers and yet remains a largely overlooked concept elsewhere in the healthcare system. We conducted focus group discussions in England UK, about the concept of health literacy with older patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions (mean age = 73.4 years), carers and health professionals. Our research posed methodological, intellectual and practical challenges. Gaps in conceptualisation and expectations were revealed, reiterating deficiencies in predominant models for understanding health literacy and methodological shortcomings of using focus groups in qualitative research for this topic. Building on this unique insight into what the concept of health literacy meant to participants, we present analysis of our findings on factors perceived to foster and inhibit health literacy and on the issue of responsibility in health literacy. Patients saw health literacy as a result of an inconsistent interactive process and the implications as wide ranging; healthcare professionals had more heterogeneous views. All focus group discussants agreed that health literacy most benefited from good inter-personal communication and partnership. By proposing a needs-based approach to health literacy we offer an alternative way of conceptualising health literacy to help improve the health of older people with chronic conditions

Fine-mapping identifies multiple prostate cancer risk loci at 5p15, one of which associates with TERT expression

Associations between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 5p15 and multiple cancer types have been reported. We have previously shown evidence for a strong association between prostate cancer (PrCa) risk and rs2242652 at 5p15, intronic in the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) gene that encodes TERT. To comprehensively evaluate the association between genetic variation across this region and PrCa, we performed a fine-mapping analysis by genotyping 134 SNPs using a custom Illumina iSelect array or Sequenom MassArray iPlex, followed by imputation of 1094 SNPs in 22 301 PrCa cases and 22 320 controls in The PRACTICAL consortium. Multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis identified four signals in the promoter or intronic regions of TERT that independently associated with PrCa risk. Gene expression analysis of normal prostate tissue showed evidence that SNPs within one of these regions also associated with TERT expression, providing a potential mechanism for predisposition to disease

Protein-coding variants implicate novel genes related to lipid homeostasis contributing to body-fat distribution.

Body-fat distribution is a risk factor for adverse cardiovascular health consequences. We analyzed the association of body-fat distribution, assessed by waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for body mass index, with 228,985 predicted coding and splice site variants available on exome arrays in up to 344,369 individuals from five major ancestries (discovery) and 132,177 European-ancestry individuals (validation). We identified 15 common (minor allele frequency, MAF ≥5%) and nine low-frequency or rare (MAF &lt;5%) coding novel variants. Pathway/gene set enrichment analyses identified lipid particle, adiponectin, abnormal white adipose tissue physiology and bone development and morphology as important contributors to fat distribution, while cross-trait associations highlight cardiometabolic traits. In functional follow-up analyses, specifically in Drosophila RNAi-knockdowns, we observed a significant increase in the total body triglyceride levels for two genes (DNAH10 and PLXND1). We implicate novel genes in fat distribution, stressing the importance of interrogating low-frequency and protein-coding variants

Evaluation of polygenic risk scores for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 94 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and 18 associated with ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Several of these are also associated with risk of BC or OC for women who carry a pathogenic mutation in the high-risk BC and OC genes BRCA1 or BRCA2. The combined effects of these variants on BC or OC risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have not yet been assessed while their clinical management could benefit from improved personalized risk estimates. Methods: We constructed polygenic risk scores (PRS) using BC and OC susceptibility SNPs identified through population-based GWAS: for BC (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative) and for OC. Using data from 15 252 female BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 carriers, the association of each PRS with BC or OC risk was evaluated using a weighted cohort approach, with time to diagnosis as the outcome and estimation of the hazard ratios (HRs) per standard deviation increase in the PRS. Results: The PRS for ER-negative BC displayed the strongest association with BC risk in BRCA1 carriers (HR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.31, P = 8.2 x 10(53)). In BRCA2 carriers, the strongest association with BC risk was seen for the overall BC PRS (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.28, P = 7.2 x 10(-20)). The OC PRS was strongly associated with OC risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These translate to differences in absolute risks (more than 10% in each case) between the top and bottom deciles of the PRS distribution; for example, the OC risk was 6% by age 80 years for BRCA2 carriers at the 10th percentile of the OC PRS compared with 19% risk for those at the 90th percentile of PRS. Conclusions: BC and OC PRS are predictive of cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Incorporation of the PRS into risk prediction models has promise to better inform decisions on cancer risk management

Prostate Cancer Risk by BRCA2 Genomic Regions.

A BRCA2 prostate cancer cluster region (PCCR) was recently proposed (c.7914 to 3') wherein pathogenic variants (PVs) are associated with higher prostate cancer (PCa) risk than PVs elsewhere in the BRCA2 gene. Using a prospective cohort study of 447 male BRCA2 PV carriers recruited in the UK and Ireland from 1998 to 2016, we estimated standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared with population incidences and assessed variation in risk by PV location. Carriers of PVs in the PCCR had a PCa SIR of 8.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.46-15.6) and were at a higher risk of PCa than carriers of other BRCA2 PVs (SIR = 3.31, 95% CI 1.97-5.57; hazard ratio = 2.34, 95% CI 1.09-5.03). PCCR PV carriers had an estimated cumulative PCa risk of 44% (95% CI 23-72%) by the age of 75 yr and 78% (95% CI 54-94%) by the age of 85 yr. Our results corroborate the existence of a PCCR in BRCA2 in a prospective cohort. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we investigated whether the risk of prostate cancer for men with a harmful mutation in the BRCA2 gene differs based on where in the gene the mutation is located. We found that men with mutations in one region of BRCA2 had a higher risk of prostate cancer than men with mutations elsewhere in the gene

Prostate Cancer Risks for Male BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk but a wide range of risk estimates have been reported that are based on retrospective studies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate relative and absolute PCa risks associated with BRCA1/2 mutations and to assess risk modification by age, family history, and mutation location. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective cohort study of male BRCA1 (n = 376) and BRCA2 carriers (n = 447) identified in clinical genetics centres in the UK and Ireland (median follow-up 5.9 and 5.3 yr, respectively). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Standardised incidence/mortality ratios (SIRs/SMRs) relative to population incidences or mortality rates, absolute risks, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using cohort and survival analysis methods. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Sixteen BRCA1 and 26 BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed with PCa during follow-up. BRCA2 carriers had an SIR of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.99-6.61) and absolute PCa risk of 27% (95% CI 17-41%) and 60% (95% CI 43-78%) by ages 75 and 85 yr, respectively. For BRCA1 carriers, the overall SIR was 2.35 (95% CI 1.43-3.88); the corresponding SIR at age <65 yr was 3.57 (95% CI 1.68-7.58). However, the BRCA1 SIR varied between 0.74 and 2.83 in sensitivity analyses to assess potential screening effects. PCa risk for BRCA2 carriers increased with family history (HR per affected relative 1.68, 95% CI 0.99-2.85). BRCA2 mutations in the region bounded by positions c.2831 and c.6401 were associated with an SIR of 2.46 (95% CI 1.07-5.64) compared to population incidences, corresponding to lower PCa risk (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-0.96) than for mutations outside the region. BRCA2 carriers had a stronger association with Gleason score ≥7 (SIR 5.07, 95% CI 3.20-8.02) than Gleason score ≤6 PCa (SIR 3.03, 95% CI 1.24-7.44), and a higher risk of death from PCa (SMR 3.85, 95% CI 1.44-10.3). Limitations include potential screening effects for these known mutation carriers; however, the BRCA2 results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results substantiate PCa risk patterns indicated by retrospective analyses for BRCA2 carriers, including further evidence of association with aggressive PCa, and give some support for a weaker association in BRCA1 carriers. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study we followed unaffected men known to carry mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes to investigate whether they are at higher risk of developing prostate cancer compared to the general population. We found that carriers of BRCA2 mutations have a high risk of developing prostate cancer, particularly more aggressive prostate cancer, and that this risk varies by family history of prostate cancer and the location of the mutation within the gene

Risks of breast or ovarian cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 predictive test negatives: findings from the EMBRACE study.

Purpose BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives are proven noncarriers of a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation that is carried by their relatives. The risk of developing breast cancer (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in these women is uncertain. The study aimed to estimate risks of invasive BC and EOC in a large cohort of BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives. Methods We used cohort analysis to estimate incidences, cumulative risks, and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Results A total of 1,895 unaffected women were eligible for inclusion in the BC risk analysis and 1,736 in the EOC risk analysis. There were 23 incident invasive BCs and 2 EOCs. The cumulative risk of invasive BC was 9.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-15%) by age 85 years and the corresponding risk of EOC was 0.6% (95% CI 0.2-2.6%). The SIR for invasive BC was 0.93 (95% CI 0.62-1.40) in the overall cohort, 0.85 (95% CI 0.48-1.50) in noncarriers from BRCA1 families, and 1.03 (95% CI 0.57-1.87) in noncarriers from BRCA2 families. The SIR for EOC was 0.79 (95% CI 0.20-3.17) in the overall cohort. Conclusion Our results did not provide evidence for elevated risks of invasive BC or EOC in BRCA1/BRCA2 predictive test negatives. Genetics in Medicine advance online publication, 22 March 2018; doi:10.1038/gim.2018.44