Exploring dietitians' salient beliefs about shared decision-making behaviors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Shared decision making (SDM), a process by which health professionals and patients go through the decision-making process together to agree on treatment, is a promising strategy for promoting diet-related decisions that are informed and value based and to which patients adhere well. The objective of the present study was to identify dietitians' salient beliefs regarding their exercise of two behaviors during the clinical encounter, both of which have been deemed essential for SDM to take place: (1) presenting patients with all dietary treatment options for a given health condition and (2) helping patients clarify their values and preferences regarding the options.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty-one dietitians were allocated to four focus groups. Facilitators conducted the focus groups using a semistructured interview guide based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed with NVivo8 (QSR International, Cambridge, MA) software.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most participants stated that better patient adherence to treatment was an advantage of adopting the two SDM behaviors. Dietitians identified patients, physicians, and the multidisciplinary team as normative referents who would approve or disapprove of their adoption of the SDM behaviors. The most often reported barriers and facilitators for the behaviors concerned patients' characteristics, patients' clinical situation, and time.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The implementation of SDM in nutrition clinical practice can be guided by addressing dietitians' salient beliefs. Identifying these beliefs also provides the theoretical framework needed for developing a quantitative survey questionnaire to further study the determinants of dietitians' adoption of SDM behaviors.</p

A Four-Gene Promoter Methylation Marker Panel Consisting of GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH Predicts Survival of Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Patients.

Purpose: The currently used prognostic models for patients with nonmetastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) are based on clinicopathologic features and might be improved by adding molecular markers. Epigenetic alterations occur frequently in ccRCC and are promising biomarkers. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic promoter methylation markers for ccRCC.Experimental Design: We integrated data generated by massive parallel sequencing of methyl-binding domain enriched DNA and microarray-based RNA expression profiling of 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine-treated ccRCC cell lines to comprehensively characterize the ccRCC methylome. A selection of the identified methylation markers was evaluated in two independent series of primary ccRCC (n = 150 and n = 185) by methylation-specific PCR. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to estimate cause-specific survival. HRs and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. To assess the predictive capacity and fit of models combining several methylation markers, HarrellC statistic and the Akaike Information Criterion were used.Results: We identified four methylation markers, that is, GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH, that individually predicted prognosis of patients with ccRCC. The four markers combined were associated with poorer survival in two independent patient series (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.02-13.00 and HR, 7.54; 95% CI, 2.68-21.19). These findings were confirmed in a third series of ccRCC cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (HR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2.02-6.40).Conclusions: A four-gene promoter methylation marker panel consisting of GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH predicts outcome of patients with ccRCC and might be used to improve current prognostic models. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 2006-18. ©2016 AACR.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Discovering a new part of the phenotypic spectrum of Coffin-Siris syndrome in a fetal cohort

Purpose: Genome-wide sequencing is increasingly being performed during pregnancy to identify the genetic cause of congenital anomalies. The interpretation of prenatally identified variants can be challenging and is hampered by our often limited knowledge of prenatal phenotypes. To better delineate the prenatal phenotype of Coffin-Siris syndrome (CSS), we collected clinical data from patients with a prenatal phenotype and a pathogenic variant in one of the CSS-associated genes. Methods: Clinical data was collected through an extensive web-based survey. Results: We included 44 patients with a variant in a CSS-associated gene and a prenatal phenotype; 9 of these patients have been reported before. Prenatal anomalies that were frequently observed in our cohort include hydrocephalus, agenesis of the corpus callosum, hypoplastic left heart syndrome, persistent left vena cava, diaphragmatic hernia, renal agenesis, and intrauterine growth restriction. Anal anomalies were frequently identified after birth in patients with ARID1A variants (6/14, 43%). Interestingly, pathogenic ARID1A variants were much more frequently identified in the current prenatal cohort (16/44, 36%) than in postnatal CSS cohorts (5%-9%). Conclusion: Our data shed new light on the prenatal phenotype of patients with pathogenic variants in CSS genes

Analysis of DNA methylation in cancer : location revisited

Changes in DNA methylation in cancer have been heralded as promising targets for the development of powerful diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers. Despite the existence of more than 14,000 scientific publications describing DNA methylation-based biomarkers and their clinical associations in cancer, only 14 of these biomarkers have been translated into a commercially available clinical test. Methodological and experimental obstacles are both major causes of this disparity, but the genomic location of a DNA methylation-based biomarker is an intrinsic and essential property that also has an important and often overlooked role. Here, we examine the importance of the location of DNA methylation for the development of cancer biomarkers, and take a detailed look at the genomic location and other relevant characteristics of the various biomarkers with commercially available tests. We also emphasize the value of publicly available databases for the development of DNA methylation-based biomarkers and the importance of accurate reporting of the full methodological details of research findings