Editorial: Frontiers in astronomy and space sciences: Rising stars

Editorial on the Research Topic Frontiers in astronomy and space sciences: Rising star

A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density

Breast Cancer Now. Grant Number: 2015MayPR515National Institute for Health Research. Grant Numbers: IS‐BRC‐1215‐20007, NF‐SI‐0513‐10076Prevent Breast Cancer. Grant Numbers: GA09‐002, GA11‐002Cancer Research UK. Grant Numbers: C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C569/A16891National Institutes of Health. Grant Numbers: X01HG007492, U19 CA148065Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Grant Number: GPH‐129344Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. Grant Numbers: 634935, 633784European Union. Grant Number: HEALTH‐F2‐2009‐22317

Risk factors for delay in symptomatic presentation of leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma

Background: UK policy aims to improve cancer outcomes by promoting early diagnosis, which for many haematological malignancies is particularly challenging as the pathways leading to diagnosis can be difficult and prolonged. Methods: A survey about symptoms was sent to patients in England with acute leukaemia, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL), chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML), myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Symptoms and barriers to first help seeking were examined for each subtype, along with the relative risk of waiting >3 months’ time from symptom onset to first presentation to a doctor, controlling for age, sex and deprivation. Results: Of the 785 respondents, 654 (83.3%) reported symptoms; most commonly for NHL (95%) and least commonly for CLL (67.9%). Some symptoms were frequent across diseases while others were more disease-specific. Overall, 16% of patients (n=114) waited >3 months before presentation; most often in CML (24%) and least in acute leukaemia (9%). Significant risk factors for >3 months to presentation were: night sweats (particularly CLL and NHL), thirst, abdominal pain/discomfort, looking pale (particularly acute leukaemias), and extreme fatigue/tiredness (particularly CML and NHL); and not realising symptom(s) were serious. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate important differences by subtype, which should be considered in strategies promoting early presentation. Not realising the seriousness of some symptoms indicates a worrying lack of public awareness

Critical research gaps and translational priorities for the successful prevention and treatment of breast cancer

INTRODUCTION Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. METHODS More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer 'stem' cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. RESULTS The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. CONCLUSIONS With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years

Pathotyping the Zoonotic Pathogen Streptococcus suis: Novel Genetic Markers To Differentiate Invasive Disease-Associated Isolates from Non-Disease-Associated Isolates from England and Wales.

Streptococcus suis is one of the most important zoonotic bacterial pathogens of pigs, causing significant economic losses to the global swine industry. S. suis is also a very successful colonizer of mucosal surfaces, and commensal strains can be found in almost all pig populations worldwide, making detection of the S. suis species in asymptomatic carrier herds of little practical value in predicting the likelihood of future clinical relevance. The value of future molecular tools for surveillance and preventative health management lies in the detection of strains that genetically have increased potential to cause disease in presently healthy animals. Here we describe the use of genome-wide association studies to identify genetic markers associated with the observed clinical phenotypes (i) invasive disease and (ii) asymptomatic carriage on the palatine tonsils of pigs on UK farms. Subsequently, we designed a multiplex PCR to target three genetic markers that differentiated 115 S. suis isolates into disease-associated and non-disease-associated groups, that performed with a sensitivity of 0.91, a specificity of 0.79, a negative predictive value of 0.91, and a positive predictive value of 0.79 in comparison to observed clinical phenotypes. We describe evaluation of our pathotyping tool, using an out-of-sample collection of 50 previously uncharacterized S. suis isolates, in comparison to existing methods used to characterize and subtype S. suis isolates. In doing so, we show our pathotyping approach to be a competitive method to characterize S. suis isolates recovered from pigs on UK farms and one that can easily be updated to incorporate global strain collections.This work was supported by a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Knowledge Transfer Network CASE studentship co-funded by Zoetis (previously Pfizer Animal Health UK) and with significant contribution from BQP Ltd (Award Reference: BB/L502479/1). Funding bodies provided scholarship support but had no part in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript. AWT is supported by a BBSRC Longer and Larger (LoLa) grant (Award Reference: BB/G019274/1). LAW is supported by a Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship funded by the Royal Society (Grant Number: DH140195) and a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship co-funded by the Royal Society and Wellcome Trust (Grant Number: 109385/Z/15/Z)

Prognostic value of monitoring tumour markers CA 15-3 and CEA during fulvestrant treatment

BACKGROUND: At many centres tumour markers are used to detect disease recurrence and to monitor response to therapy in patients with advanced disease, although the real value of serial observation of marker levels remains disputed. In this study, we evaluated the prognostic value of tumour markers for predicting response (partial response [PR], stable disease [SD] ≥ 6 months), de novo disease progression (PD) and secondary PD in patients receiving fulvestrant ('Faslodex') 250 mg/month for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Changes in cancer antigen 15–3 (CA 15-3) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were prospectively monitored (monthly) and were also evaluated for the 3 months preceding secondary PD. Data from 67 patients with previously treated MBC participating in a Compassionate Use Programme were analysed. RESULTS: In patients with a PR (n = 7 [10.4%]), a non-significant increase in CA 15-3 occurred during the first 6 months of treatment; CEA was significantly reduced (P = 0.0165). In patients with SD ≥ 6 months (n = 28 [41.8%]), both CA 15-3 (P < 0.0001) and CEA (P = 0.0399) levels increased significantly after 6 months treatment. In those experiencing de novo PD (n = 32 [47.8%]), CA 15-3 increased significantly (P < 0.0001) after 4 months; CEA also increased significantly (P = 0.0002) during the same time period. Both CA 15-3 (P < 0.0001) and CEA (P < 0.0001) increased significantly in the 3 months preceding secondary PD. CONCLUSION: CA 15-3 increases in patients progressing on fulvestrant but may also increase in those experiencing clinical benefit; this should not be taken as a sign of PD without verification. Overall, both CA 15-3 and CEA appear to be poor prognostic markers for determining progression in patients receiving fulvestrant