Using mammographic density to predict breast cancer risk: dense area or percentage dense area.

INTRODUCTION: Mammographic density (MD) is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer. It is not clear whether this association is best expressed in terms of absolute dense area or percentage dense area (PDA). METHODS: We measured MD, including nondense area (here a surrogate for weight), in the mediolateral oblique (MLO) mammogram using a computer-assisted thresholding technique for 634 cases and 1,880 age-matched controls from the Cambridge and Norwich Breast Screening programs. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the risk of breast cancer, and fits of the models were compared using likelihood ratio tests and the Bayesian information criteria (BIC). All P values were two-sided. RESULTS: Square-root dense area was the best single predictor (for example, χ₁² = 53.2 versus 44.4 for PDA). Addition of PDA and/or square-root nondense area did not improve the fit (both P > 0.3). Addition of nondense area improved the fit of the model with PDA (χ₁² = 11.6; P < 0.001). According to the BIC, the PDA and nondense area model did not provide a better fit than the dense area alone model. The fitted values of the two models were highly correlated (r = 0.97). When a measure of body size is included with PDA, the predicted risk is almost identical to that from fitting dense area alone. CONCLUSIONS: As a single parameter, dense area provides more information than PDA on breast cancer risk

The Relationship between Body Mass Index and Mammographic Density during a Premenopausal Weight Loss Intervention Study.

We evaluated the association between short-term change in body mass index (BMI) and breast density during a 1 year weight-loss intervention (Manchester, UK). We included 65 premenopausal women (35-45 years, ≥7 kg adult weight gain, family history of breast cancer). BMI and breast density (semi-automated area-based, automated volume-based) were measured at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years after study entry (1 year post intervention). Cross-sectional (between-women) and short-term change (within-women) associations between BMI and breast density were measured using repeated-measures correlation coefficients and multivariable linear mixed models. BMI was positively correlated with dense volume between-women (r = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.17, 0.61), but less so within-women (r = 0.08, 95%CI: -0.16, 0.28). There was little association with dense area (between-women r = -0.12, 95%CI: -0.38, 0.16; within-women r = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.24, 0.25). BMI and breast fat were positively correlated (volume: between r = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.69, 0.84, within r = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.36, 0.75; area: between r = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.63, 0.82, within r = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.63). Multivariable models reported similar associations. Exploratory analysis suggested associations between BMI gain from 20 years and density measures (standard deviation change per +5 kg/m2 BMI: dense area: +0.61 (95%CI: 0.12, 1.09); fat volume: -0.31 (95%CI: -0.62, 0.00)). Short-term BMI change is likely to be positively associated with breast fat, but we found little association with dense tissue, although power was limited by small sample size

Novel Associations between Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Risk-Predicting Mammographic Density Measures.

Mammographic density measures adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) are heritable predictors of breast cancer risk, but few mammographic density-associated genetic variants have been identified. Using data for 10,727 women from two international consortia, we estimated associations between 77 common breast cancer susceptibility variants and absolute dense area, percent dense area and absolute nondense area adjusted for study, age, and BMI using mixed linear modeling. We found strong support for established associations between rs10995190 (in the region of ZNF365), rs2046210 (ESR1), and rs3817198 (LSP1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas (all P < 10(-5)). Of 41 recently discovered breast cancer susceptibility variants, associations were found between rs1432679 (EBF1), rs17817449 (MIR1972-2: FTO), rs12710696 (2p24.1), and rs3757318 (ESR1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas, respectively. There were associations between rs6001930 (MKL1) and both adjusted absolute dense and nondense areas, and between rs17356907 (NTN4) and adjusted absolute nondense area. Trends in all but two associations were consistent with those for breast cancer risk. Results suggested that 18% of breast cancer susceptibility variants were associated with at least one mammographic density measure. Genetic variants at multiple loci were associated with both breast cancer risk and the mammographic density measures. Further understanding of the underlying mechanisms at these loci could help identify etiologic pathways implicated in how mammographic density predicts breast cancer risk.ABCFS: The Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry (ABCFR; 1992-1995) was supported by the Australian NHMRC, the New South Wales Cancer Council, and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia), and by grant UM1CA164920 from the USA National Cancer Institute. The Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory at the University of Melbourne has also received generous support from Mr B. Hovey and Dr and Mrs R.W. Brown to whom we are most grateful. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 5 Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. BBCC: This study was funded in part by the ELAN-Program of the University Hospital Erlangen; Katharina Heusinger was funded by the ELAN program of the University Hospital Erlangen. BBCC was supported in part by the ELAN program of the Medical Faculty, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg. EPIC-Norfolk: This study was funded by research programme grant funding from Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council with additional support from the Stroke Association, British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Research into Ageing and Academy of Medical Sciences. MCBCS: This study was supported by Public Health Service Grants P50 CA 116201, R01 CA 128931, R01 CA 128931-S01, R01 CA 122340, CCSG P30 CA15083, from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. MCCS: Melissa C. Southey is a National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellow and a Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium Group Leader. The study was supported by the Cancer Council of Victoria and by the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. MEC: National Cancer Institute: R37CA054281, R01CA063464, R01CA085265, R25CA090956, R01CA132839. MMHS: This work was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. (R01 CA128931, R01 CA 128931-S01, R01 CA97396, P50 CA116201, and Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA15083). Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 6 NBCS: This study has been supported with grants from Norwegian Research Council (#183621/S10 and #175240/S10), The Norwegian Cancer Society (PK80108002, PK60287003), and The Radium Hospital Foundation as well as S-02036 from South Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. NHS: This study was supported by Public Health Service Grants CA131332, CA087969, CA089393, CA049449, CA98233, CA128931, CA 116201, CA 122340 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. OOA study was supported by CA122822 and X01 HG005954 from the NIH; Breast Cancer Research Fund; Elizabeth C. Crosby Research Award, Gladys E. Davis Endowed Fund, and the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan. Genotyping services for the OOA study were provided by the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the National Institutes of Health to The Johns Hopkins University, contract number HHSN268200782096. OFBCR: This work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the USA National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. SASBAC: The SASBAC study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausing’s Initiative against Breast Cancer, National Institutes of Health, Susan Komen Foundation and Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR). Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 7 SIBS: SIBS was supported by program grant C1287/A10118 and project grants from Cancer Research UK (grant numbers C1287/8459). COGS grant: Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS) that enabled the genotyping for this study. Funding for the BCAC component is provided by grants from the EU FP7 programme (COGS) and from Cancer Research UK. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post- Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAMEON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available via American Association for Cancer Research at http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/10/0008-5472.CAN-14-2012.abstract

Rare and low-frequency coding variants alter human adult height

Height is a highly heritable, classic polygenic trait with ~700 common associated variants identified so far through genome - wide association studies . Here , we report 83 height - associated coding variants with lower minor allele frequenc ies ( range of 0.1 - 4.8% ) and effects of up to 2 16 cm /allele ( e.g. in IHH , STC2 , AR and CRISPLD2 ) , >10 times the average effect of common variants . In functional follow - up studies, rare height - increasing alleles of STC2 (+1 - 2 cm/allele) compromise d proteolytic inhibition of PAPP - A and increased cleavage of IGFBP - 4 in vitro , resulting in higher bioavailability of insulin - like growth factors . The se 83 height - associated variants overlap genes mutated in monogenic growth disorders and highlight new biological candidates ( e.g. ADAMTS3, IL11RA, NOX4 ) and pathways ( e.g . proteoglycan/ glycosaminoglycan synthesis ) involved in growth . Our results demonstrate that sufficiently large sample sizes can uncover rare and low - frequency variants of moderate to large effect associated with polygenic human phenotypes , and that these variants implicate relevant genes and pathways

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)