A Brief Report: Community Supportiveness May Facilitate Participation of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder in Their Community and Reduce Feelings of Isolation in Their Caregivers

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participate at lower rates in their community, and their caregivers experience higher levels of stress, in comparison to families of typically developing (TD) children. The social model of disability positions the environment as the central issue when children with disabilities are unable to participate, yet little is known about the relationship between poor community support, reduced community participation in children with ASD, and caregiver stress. This study examined caregiver perceptions of community supportiveness for the community participation of 48 children with ASD (aged 5–12 years), alongside caregiver-reported child ASD symptom severity, adaptive functioning, and caregiver stress. Community supportiveness predicted child involvement, but not attendance, when child characteristics were held constant. Caregiver perceptions of low community supportiveness significantly predicted caregiver feelings of isolation. The importance of modifying community programs to better support inclusion of children with ASD is discussed

Evaluation of a candidate breast cancer associated SNP in ERCC4 as a risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/BRCA2 (CIMBA)

Background: In this study we aimed to evaluate the role of a SNP in intron 1 of the ERCC4 gene (rs744154), previously reported to be associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer in the general population, as a breast cancer risk modifier in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Methods: We have genotyped rs744154 in 9408 BRCA1 and 5632 BRCA2 mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and assessed its association with breast cancer risk using a retrospective weighted cohort approach. Results: We found no evidence of association with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 (per-allele HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.93–1.04, P=0.5) or BRCA2 (per-allele HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.89–1.06, P=0.5) mutation carriers. Conclusion: This SNP is not a significant modifier of breast cancer risk for mutation carriers, though weak associations cannot be ruled out. A Osorio1, R L Milne2, G Pita3, P Peterlongo4,5, T Heikkinen6, J Simard7, G Chenevix-Trench8, A B Spurdle8, J Beesley8, X Chen8, S Healey8, KConFab9, S L Neuhausen10, Y C Ding10, F J Couch11,12, X Wang11, N Lindor13, S Manoukian4, M Barile14, A Viel15, L Tizzoni5,16, C I Szabo17, L Foretova18, M Zikan19, K Claes20, M H Greene21, P Mai21, G Rennert22, F Lejbkowicz22, O Barnett-Griness22, I L Andrulis23,24, H Ozcelik24, N Weerasooriya23, OCGN23, A-M Gerdes25, M Thomassen25, D G Cruger26, M A Caligo27, E Friedman28,29, B Kaufman28,29, Y Laitman28, S Cohen28, T Kontorovich28, R Gershoni-Baruch30, E Dagan31,32, H Jernström33, M S Askmalm34, B Arver35, B Malmer36, SWE-BRCA37, S M Domchek38, K L Nathanson38, J Brunet39, T Ramón y Cajal40, D Yannoukakos41, U Hamann42, HEBON37, F B L Hogervorst43, S Verhoef43, EB Gómez García44,45, J T Wijnen46,47, A van den Ouweland48, EMBRACE37, D F Easton49, S Peock49, M Cook49, C T Oliver49, D Frost49, C Luccarini50, D G Evans51, F Lalloo51, R Eeles52, G Pichert53, J Cook54, S Hodgson55, P J Morrison56, F Douglas57, A K Godwin58, GEMO59,60,61, O M Sinilnikova59,60, L Barjhoux59,60, D Stoppa-Lyonnet61, V Moncoutier61, S Giraud59, C Cassini62,63, L Olivier-Faivre62,63, F Révillion64, J-P Peyrat64, D Muller65, J-P Fricker65, H T Lynch66, E M John67, S Buys68, M Daly69, J L Hopper70, M B Terry71, A Miron72, Y Yassin72, D Goldgar73, Breast Cancer Family Registry37, C F Singer74, D Gschwantler-Kaulich74, G Pfeiler74, A-C Spiess74, Thomas v O Hansen75, O T Johannsson76, T Kirchhoff77, K Offit77, K Kosarin77, M Piedmonte78, G C Rodriguez79, K Wakeley80, J F Boggess81, J Basil82, P E Schwartz83, S V Blank84, A E Toland85, M Montagna86, C Casella87, E N Imyanitov88, A Allavena89, R K Schmutzler90, B Versmold90, C Engel91, A Meindl92, N Ditsch93, N Arnold94, D Niederacher95, H Deißler96, B Fiebig97, R Varon-Mateeva98, D Schaefer99, U G Froster100, T Caldes101, M de la Hoya101, L McGuffog49, A C Antoniou49, H Nevanlinna6, P Radice4,5 and J Benítez1,3 on behalf of CIMB

Predominance of CIN versus MSI in the development of rectal cancer at young age

BACKGROUND: Development of proximal and distal colorectal cancers involve partly different mechanisms associated with the microsatellite instability (MSI) and the chromosomal instability (CIN) pathways. Colorectal cancers in patients under 50 years of age represent about 5% of the total number of tumors and have been associated with an increased frequency of MSI tumors. However, MSI and CIN may play different roles in the development of colon cancer and rectal cancer, and we have specifically investigated their contribution to the development of rectal cancer at young age. METHODS: Thirty rectal cancers diagnosed before the age of 50 were characterized for DNA-ploidy, MSI, mutations of KRAS and CTNNB1 and immunohistochemical expression of p53, β-catenin and of the mismatch repair (MMR) proteins MLH1 and MSH2. RESULTS: DNA aneuploidy was detected in 21/30 tumors, KRAS mutations in 6 tumors, no mutations of CTNNB1 were detected but immunohistochemical staining for β-catenin showed nuclear staining in 6 tumors, and immunohistochemical expression of p53 was detected in 18 tumors. MSI was detected in 3/30 tumors, all of which showed and immunohistochemical loss of staining for the MMR protein MSH2, which strongly indicates a phenotype associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). CONCLUSIONS: MSI occurs only in a small fraction of the tumors from young patients with rectal cancer, but when present it strongly indicates an underlying HNPCC-causing mutation, and other mechanisms than HNPCC thus cause rectal cancer in the majority of young patients

Molecular Biomarkers for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer

Objectives: To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens

The diagnostic value of liver biopsy

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of molecular diagnostic tools such as markers for hepatitis C and different autoimmune diseases, liver biopsy is thought to be useful mainly for staging but not for diagnostic purposes. The aim was to review the liver biopsies for 5 years after introduction of testing for hepatitis C, in order to evaluate what diagnostic insights – if any – remain after serologic testing. METHODS: Retrospective review of all liver biopsies performed between 1.1.1995 and 31.12.1999 at an academic outpatient hepatology department. The diagnoses suspected in the biopsy note were compared with the final diagnosis arrived at during a joint meeting with the responsible clinicians and a hepatopathologist. RESULTS: In 365 patients, 411 diagnoses were carried out before biopsy. 84.4 % were confirmed by biopsy but in 8.8 %, 6.8 % and 10.5 % the diagnosis was specified, changed or a diagnosis added, respectively. Additional diagnoses of clinical relevance were unrecognized biliary obstruction and additional alcoholic liver disease in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Liver biopsy led to change in management for 12.1 % of patients. CONCLUSION: Even in the era of advanced virological, immunological and molecular genetic testing, liver biopsy remains a useful diagnostic tool. The yield is particularly high in marker negative patients but also in patients with a clear-cut prebiopsy diagnosis, liver biopsy can lead to changes in patient management

Molecular Biomarkers for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer: Guideline From the American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology

OBJECTIVES: - To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: - The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted. RESULTS: - Twenty-one guideline statements were established. CONCLUSIONS: - Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented