A genome-wide association study of breast and prostate cancer in the NHLBI's Framingham Heart Study

BACKGROUND: Breast and prostate cancer are two commonly diagnosed cancers in the United States. Prior work suggests that cancer causing genes and cancer susceptibility genes can be identified. METHODS: We conducted a genome-wide association study (Affymetrix 100K SNP GeneChip) of cancer in the community-based Framingham Heart Study. We report on 2 cancer traits – prostate cancer and breast cancer – in up to 1335 participants from 330 families (54% women, mean entry age 33 years). Multivariable-adjusted residuals, computed using Cox proportional hazards models, were tested for association with qualifying SNPs (70, 987 autosomal SNPs with genotypic call rate ≥80%, minor allele frequency ≥10%, Hardy-Weinberg test p ≥ 0.001) using generalized estimating equations (GEE) models and family based association tests (FBAT). RESULTS: There were 58 women with breast cancer and 59 men with prostate cancer. No SNP associations attained genome-wide significance. The top SNP associations in GEE models for each trait were as follows: breast cancer, rs2075555, p = 8.0 × 10-8 in COL1A1; and prostate cancer, rs9311171, p = 1.75 × 10-6 in CTDSPL. In analysis of selected candidate cancer susceptibility genes, two MSR1 SNPs (rs9325782, GEE p = 0.008 and rs2410373, FBAT p = 0.021) were associated with prostate cancer and three ERBB4 SNPs (rs905883 GEE p = 0.0002, rs7564590 GEE p = 0.003, rs7558615 GEE p = 0.0078) were associated with breast cancer. The previously reported risk SNP for prostate cancer, rs1447295, was not included on the 100K chip. Results of cancer phenotype-genotype associations for all autosomal SNPs are web posted at. CONCLUSION: Although no association attained genome-wide significance, several interesting associations emerged for breast and prostate cancer. These findings can serve as a resource for replication in other populations to identify novel biologic pathways contributing to cancer susceptibility.National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (N01-HC-25195); National Institutes of Health National Center for Research Resources Shared Instrumentation grant (1S10RR163736-01A1

Adjuvant therapy of osteosarcoma—A Phase II trial

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to estimate the time to treatment failure and survival rate of the three-drug combination of doxorubicin, cisplatin, and ifosfamide as primary and postoperative, adjunctive treatment for teenagers and adults with osteosarcoma (OS). METHODS Sixty-three eligible patients with nonmetastatic OS of the extremities were registered from 24 institutions from February, 1992 through December, 1996. Chemotherapy was comprised of doxorubicin at a dose of 75 mg/m 2 and cisplatin at a dose of 120 mg/m 2 , alternating with doxorubicin at a dose of 50 mg/m 2 and ifosfamide at a dose of 8 g/m 2 . Four cycles were given prior to surgical resection, and four cycles were given after surgery. Outcome measures included the time to treatment failure, overall survival, toxicity, and centralized assessment of tumor necrosis. RESULTS Thirty-one of 63 eligible patients died, for a 5-year overall survival rate of 58% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 46–71%). The median time to treatment failure was 19 months (95% CI, 12–41 months). A good pathologic response (≥ 90% necrosis) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was observed in 48% of patients who underwent surgery. There was no correlation noted between response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and patient outcome. Grade 4 hematologic toxicities were frequent (89%), although serious nonhematologic toxicities other than nausea and emesis were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS The regimen and schedule used in the current study did not improve outcomes compared with prior trials of doxorubicin and cisplatin alone. New, more effective drugs are needed for the treatment of patients with OS. The identification and utilization of molecular markers to predict outcome and response to therapy would facilitate clinical management, limiting exposure to toxic therapies for patients with favorable molecular profiles and identifying those patients who may fail with current approaches as candidates for clinical trials. Cancer 2004;100:818–25. © 2004 American Cancer Society.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/34384/1/20021_ftp.pd

A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Background - The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent and objective approaches to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDC exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. Methods - We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. Results - Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. Conclusions - When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.The workshops that supported the writing of this manuscript were funded by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research “Mistra”. LNV was funded by Award Number K22ES025811 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. TJW was funded by The Clarence Heller Foundation (A123547), the Passport Foundation, the Forsythia Foundation, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grants ES018135 and ESO22841), and U.S. EPA STAR grants (RD83467801 and RD83543301). JT was funded by the Academy of Finland and Sigrid Juselius. UH was funded by the Danish EPA. KAK was funded by the Canada Research Chairs program grant number 950–230607

In Support of a Patient-Driven Initiative and Petition to Lower the High Price of Cancer Drugs

Comment in Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--III. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--I. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs--IV. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] In Reply--Lowering the High Cost of Cancer Drugs. [Mayo Clin Proc. 2016] US oncologists call for government regulation to curb drug price rises. [BMJ. 2015

A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating Interleukin-2 Activated Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation and Post-transplant IL-2 for High Risk Breast Cancer Patients

This Phase III randomized multicenter trial compared progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for autologous peripheral blood stem cell (aPBSC) transplantation with or without immunotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44232/1/10549_2005_Article_4445.pd