Human gene copy number spectra analysis in congenital heart malformations

The clinical significance of copy number variants (CNVs) in congenital heart disease (CHD) continues to be a challenge. Although CNVs including genes can confer disease risk, relationships between gene dosage and phenotype are still being defined. Our goal was to perform a quantitative analysis of CNVs involving 100 well-defined CHD risk genes identified through previously published human association studies in subjects with anatomically defined cardiac malformations. A novel analytical approach permitting CNV gene frequency “spectra” to be computed over prespecified regions to determine phenotype-gene dosage relationships was employed. CNVs in subjects with CHD (n = 945), subphenotyped into 40 groups and verified in accordance with the European Paediatric Cardiac Code, were compared with two control groups, a disease-free cohort (n = 2,026) and a population with coronary artery disease (n = 880). Gains (≥200 kb) and losses (≥100 kb) were determined over 100 CHD risk genes and compared using a Barnard exact test. Six subphenotypes showed significant enrichment (P ≤ 0.05), including aortic stenosis (valvar), atrioventricular canal (partial), atrioventricular septal defect with tetralogy of Fallot, subaortic stenosis, tetralogy of Fallot, and truncus arteriosus. Furthermore, CNV gene frequency spectra were enriched (P ≤ 0.05) for losses at: FKBP6, ELN, GTF2IRD1, GATA4, CRKL, TBX1, ATRX, GPC3, BCOR, ZIC3, FLNA and MID1; and gains at: PRKAB2, FMO5, CHD1L, BCL9, ACP6, GJA5, HRAS, GATA6 and RUNX1. Of CHD subjects, 14% had causal chromosomal abnormalities, and 4.3% had likely causal (significantly enriched), large, rare CNVs. CNV frequency spectra combined with precision phenotyping may lead to increased molecular understanding of etiologic pathways

The risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1/2 negative high risk families as compared to patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction: While it has been reported that the risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families is elevated, little is known about contralateral breast cancer risk in patients from high risk families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations. Methods: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study was performed from 1996 to 2011 and comprised 6,235 women with unilateral breast cancer from 6,230 high risk families that had tested positive for BRCA1 (n = 1,154) or BRCA2 (n = 575) mutations or tested negative (n = 4,501). Cumulative contralateral breast cancer risks were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method and were compared between groups using the log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was applied to assess the impact of the age at first breast cancer and the familial history stratified by mutation status. Results: The cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer 25 years after first breast cancer was 44.1% (95%CI, 37.6% to 50.6%) for patients from BRCA1 positive families, 33.5% (95%CI, 22.4% to 44.7%) for patients from BRCA2 positive families and 17.2% (95%CI, 14.5% to 19.9%) for patients from families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations. Younger age at first breast cancer was associated with a higher risk of contralateral breast cancer. For women who had their first breast cancer before the age of 40 years, the cumulative risk of contralateral breast cancer after 25 years was 55.1% for BRCA1, 38.4% for BRCA2, and 28.4% for patients from BRCA1/2 negative families. If the first breast cancer was diagnosed at the age of 50 or later, 25-year cumulative risks were 21.6% for BRCA1, 15.5% for BRCA2, and 12.9% for BRCA1/2 negative families. Conclusions: Contralateral breast cancer risk in patients from high risk families that tested negative for BRCA1/2 mutations is similar to the risk in patients with sporadic breast cancer. Thus, the mutation status should guide decision making for contralateral mastectomy

Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women's information.

UNLABELLED: This paper summarizes information about breast MRI to be provided to women and referring physicians. After listing contraindications, procedure details are described, stressing the need for correct scheduling and not moving during the examination. The structured report including BI-RADS® categories and further actions after a breast MRI examination are discussed. Breast MRI is a very sensitive modality, significantly improving screening in high-risk women. It also has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, and staging, impacting on patient management. However, it is not a perfect test, and occasionally breast cancers can be missed. Therefore, clinical and other imaging findings (from mammography/ultrasound) should also be considered. Conversely, MRI may detect lesions not visible on other imaging modalities turning out to be benign (false positives). These risks should be discussed with women before a breast MRI is requested/performed. Because breast MRI drawbacks depend upon the indication for the examination, basic information for the most important breast MRI indications is presented. Seventeen notes and five frequently asked questions formulated for use as direct communication to women are provided. The text was reviewed by Europa Donna-The European Breast Cancer Coalition to ensure that it can be easily understood by women undergoing MRI. KEY POINTS: • Information on breast MRI concerns advantages/disadvantages and preparation to the examination • Claustrophobia, implantable devices, allergic predisposition, and renal function should be checked • Before menopause, scheduling on day 7-14 of the cycle is preferred • During the examination, it is highly important that the patient keeps still • Availability of prior examinations improves accuracy of breast MRI interpretation.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3807-

An ethnographic organisational study of alongside midwifery units: a follow-on study from the Birthplace in England programme - Full Report

Background: Alongside midwifery units (AMUs) were identified as a novel hybrid organisational form in the Birthplace in England Research Programme, to which this is a follow-on study. The number of such units (also known as hospital birth centres) has increased greatly in the UK since 2007. They provide midwife-led care to low-risk women adjacent to maternity units run by obstetricians, aiming to provide a homely environment to support normal childbirth. Women are transferred to the obstetric unit (OU) if they want an epidural or if complications occur. Aims: This study aimed to investigate the ways that AMUs in England are organised, staffed and managed. It also aimed to look at the experiences of women receiving maternity care in an AMU and the views and experiences of maternity staff, including both those who work in an AMU and those in the adjacent OU. Methods: An organisational ethnography approach was used, incorporating case studies of four AMUs, selected for maximum variation on the basis of geographical context, length of establishment of an AMU, size of unit, management, leadership and physical design. Interviews were conducted between December 2011 and October 2012 with service managers and key stakeholders (n = 35), with professionals working within and in relation to AMUs (n = 54) and with postnatal women and birth partners (n = 47). Observations were conducted of key decision-making points in the service (n = 20) and relevant service documents and guidelines were collected and reviewed. Findings: Women and their families valued AMU care highly for its relaxed and comfortable environment, in which they felt cared for and valued, and for its support for normal birth. However, key points of transition for women could pose threats to equity of access and quality of their care, such as information and preparation for AMU care, and gaining admission in labour and transfer out of the unit. Midwives working in AMUs highly valued the environment, approach and the opportunity to exercise greater professional autonomy, but relations between units could also be experienced as problematic and as threats to professional autonomy as well as to quality and safety of care. We identified key themes that pose potential challenges for the quality, safety and sustainability of AMU care: boundary work and management, professional issues, staffing models and relationships, skills and confidence, and information and access for women. Conclusions: AMUs have a role to play in contributing to service quality and safety. They provide care that is satisfying for women, their partners and families and for health professionals, and they facilitate appropriate care pathways and professional roles and skills. There is a potential for AMUs to provide equitable access to midwife-led care when midwifery unit care is the default option (opt-out) for all healthy women. The Birthplace in England study indicated that AMUs provide safe and cost-effective care. However, the opportunity to plan to birth in an AMU is not yet available to all eligible women, and is often an opt-in service, which may limit access. The alignment of physical, philosophical and professional boundaries is inherent in the rationale for AMU provision, but poses challenges for managing the service to ensure key safety features of quality and safety are maintained. We discuss some key issues that may be relevant to managers in seeking to respond to such challenges, including professional education, inter- and intraprofessional communication, relationships and teamwork, integrated models of midwifery and women’s care pathways. Further work is recommended to examine approaches to scaling up of midwifery unit provision, including staffing and support models. Research is also recommended on how to support women effectively in early labour and on provision of evidence-based and supportive information for women. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Breast ultrasound: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

Abstract This article summarises the information that should be provided to women and referring physicians about breast ultrasound (US). After explaining the physical principles, technical procedure and safety of US, information is given about its ability to make a correct diagnosis, depending on the setting in which it is applied. The following definite indications for breast US in female subjects are proposed: palpable lump; axillary adenopathy; first diagnostic approach for clinical abnormalities under 40 and in pregnant or lactating women; suspicious abnormalities at mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); suspicious nipple discharge; recent nipple inversion; skin retraction; breast inflammation; abnormalities in the area of the surgical scar after breast conserving surgery or mastectomy; abnormalities in the presence of breast implants; screening high-risk women, especially when MRI is not performed; loco-regional staging of a known breast cancer, when MRI is not performed; guidance for percutaneous interventions (needle biopsy, pre-surgical localisation, fluid collection drainage); monitoring patients with breast cancer receiving neo-adjuvant therapy, when MRI is not performed. Possible indications such as supplemental screening after mammography for women aged 40–74 with dense breasts are also listed. Moreover, inappropriate indications include screening for breast cancer as a stand-alone alternative to mammography. The structure and organisation of the breast US report and of classification systems such as the BI-RADS and consequent management recommendations are illustrated. Information about additional or new US technologies (colour-Doppler, elastography, and automated whole breast US) is also provided. Finally, five frequently asked questions are answered. Teaching Points • US is an established tool for suspected cancers at all ages and also the method of choice under 40. • For US-visible suspicious lesions, US-guided biopsy is preferred, even for palpable findings. • High-risk women can be screened with US, especially when MRI cannot be performed. • Supplemental US increases cancer detection but also false positives, biopsy rate and follow-up exams. • Breast US is inappropriate as a stand-alone screening method

Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

UNLABELLED: EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 % for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is <1 % per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 % for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with "limited evidence". Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years; extension up to 73 or 75 years, biennially, is a second priority, from 40-45 to 49 years, annually, a third priority. Screening with thermography or other optical tools as alternatives to mammography is discouraged. Preference should be given to population screening programmes on a territorial basis, with double reading. Adoption of digital mammography (not film-screen or phosphor-plate computer radiography) is a priority, which also improves sensitivity in dense breasts. Radiologists qualified as screening readers should be involved in programmes. Digital breast tomosynthesis is also set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future. Dedicated pathways for high-risk women offering breast MRI according to national or international guidelines and recommendations are encouraged. KEY POINTS: • EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support screening mammography. • A first priority is double-reading biennial mammography for women aged 50-69 years. • Extension to 73-75 and from 40-45 to 49 years is also encouraged. • Digital mammography (not film-screen or computer radiography) should be used. • DBT is set to become "routine mammography" in the screening setting in the next future

The HELLP syndrome: Clinical issues and management. A Review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The HELLP syndrome is a serious complication in pregnancy characterized by haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelet count occurring in 0.5 to 0.9% of all pregnancies and in 10–20% of cases with severe preeclampsia. The present review highlights occurrence, diagnosis, complications, surveillance, corticosteroid treatment, mode of delivery and risk of recurrence.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Clinical reports and reviews published between 2000 and 2008 were screened using Pub Med and Cochrane databases.</p> <p>Results and conclusion</p> <p>About 70% of the cases develop before delivery, the majority between the 27th and 37th gestational weeks; the remainder within 48 hours after delivery. The HELLP syndrome may be complete or incomplete. In the Tennessee Classification System diagnostic criteria for HELLP are haemolysis with increased LDH (> 600 U/L), AST (≥ 70 U/L), and platelets < 100·10⁹/L. The Mississippi Triple-class HELLP System further classifies the disorder by the nadir platelet counts. The syndrome is a progressive condition and serious complications are frequent. Conservative treatment (≥ 48 hours) is controversial but may be considered in selected cases < 34 weeks' gestation. Delivery is indicated if the HELLP syndrome occurs after the 34th gestational week or the foetal and/or maternal conditions deteriorate. Vaginal delivery is preferable. If the cervix is unfavourable, it is reasonable to induce cervical ripening and then labour. In gestational ages between 24 and 34 weeks most authors prefer a single course of corticosteroid therapy for foetal lung maturation, either 2 doses of 12 mg betamethasone 24 hours apart or 6 mg or dexamethasone 12 hours apart before delivery. Standard corticosteroid treatment is, however, of uncertain clinical value in the maternal HELLP syndrome. High-dose treatment and repeated doses should be avoided for fear of long-term adverse effects on the foetal brain. Before 34 weeks' gestation, delivery should be performed if the maternal condition worsens or signs of intrauterine foetal distress occur. Blood pressure should be kept below 155/105 mmHg. Close surveillance of the mother should be continued for at least 48 hours after delivery.</p

Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging

Abstract: We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as “high-risk” or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered