Citations

The MRI community is using quantitative mapping techniques to complement qualitative imaging. For quantitative imaging to reach its full potential, it is necessary to analyze measurements across systems and longitudinally. Clinical use of quantitative imaging can be facilitated through adoption and use of a standard system phantom, a calibration/standard reference object, to assess the performance of an MRI machine. The International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine AdHoc Committee on Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance was established in February 2007 to facilitate the expansion of MRI as a mainstream modality for multi‐institutional measurements, including, among other things, multicenter trials. The goal of the Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance committee was to provide a framework to ensure that quantitative measures derived from MR data are comparable over time, between subjects, between sites, and between vendors. This paper, written by members of the Standards for Quantitative Magnetic Resonance committee, reviews standardization attempts and then details the need, requirements, and implementation plan for a standard system phantom for quantitative MRI. In addition, application‐specific phantoms and implementation of quantitative MRI are reviewed. Magn Reson Med 79:48–61, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Abstract Background:BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers are at substantially increased risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer. The incomplete penetrance coupled with the variable age at diagnosis in carriers of the same mutation suggests the existence of genetic and nongenetic modifying factors. In this study, we evaluated the putative role of variants in many candidate modifier genes. Methods: Genotyping data from 15,252 BRCA1 and 8,211 BRCA2 mutation carriers, for known variants (n = 3,248) located within or around 445 candidate genes, were available through the iCOGS custom-designed array. Breast and ovarian cancer association analysis was performed within a retrospective cohort approach. Results: The observed P values of association ranged between 0.005 and 1.000. None of the variants was significantly associated with breast or ovarian cancer risk in either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, after multiple testing adjustments. Conclusion: There is little evidence that any of the evaluated candidate variants act as modifiers of breast and/or ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: Genome-wide association studies have been more successful at identifying genetic modifiers of BRCA1/2 penetrance than candidate gene studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(1); 308–16. ©2014 AACR.

Abstract BACKGROUND Accurate evaluation of unclassified sequence variants in cancer predisposition genes is essential for clinical management and depends on a multifactorial analysis of clinical, genetic, pathologic, and bioinformatic variables and assays of transcript length and abundance. The integrity of assay data in turn relies on appropriate assay design, interpretation, and reporting. METHODS We conducted a multicenter investigation to compare mRNA splicing assay protocols used by members of the ENIGMA (Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium. We compared similarities and differences in results derived from analysis of a panel of breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene variants known to alter splicing (BRCA1: c.135-1G>T, c.591C>T, c.594-2A>C, c.671-2A>G, and c.5467+5G>C and BRCA2: c.426-12_8delGTTTT, c.7988A>T, c.8632+1G>A, and c.9501+3A>T). Differences in protocols were then assessed to determine which elements were critical in reliable assay design. RESULTS PCR primer design strategies, PCR conditions, and product detection methods, combined with a prior knowledge of expected alternative transcripts, were the key factors for accurate splicing assay results. For example, because of the position of primers and PCR extension times, several isoforms associated with BRCA1, c.594-2A>C and c.671-2A>G, were not detected by many sites. Variation was most evident for the detection of low-abundance transcripts (e.g., BRCA2 c.8632+1G>A Δ19,20 and BRCA1 c.135-1G>T Δ5q and Δ3). Detection of low-abundance transcripts was sometimes addressed by using more analytically sensitive detection methods (e.g., BRCA2 c.426-12_8delGTTTT ins18bp). CONCLUSIONS We provide recommendations for best practice and raise key issues to consider when designing mRNA assays for evaluation of unclassified sequence variants.

Abstract Background: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified variants at 19p13.1 and ZNF365 (10q21.2) as risk factors for breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, respectively. We explored associations with ovarian cancer and with breast cancer by tumor histopathology for these variants in mutation carriers from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Methods: Genotyping data for 12,599 BRCA1 and 7,132 BRCA2 mutation carriers from 40 studies were combined. Results: We confirmed associations between rs8170 at 19p13.1 and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers [HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.07–1.27; P = 7.42 × 10−4] and between rs16917302 at ZNF365 (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.97; P = 0.017) but not rs311499 at 20q13.3 (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P = 0.22) and breast cancer risk for BRCA2 mutation carriers. Analyses based on tumor histopathology showed that 19p13 variants were predominantly associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, whereas rs16917302 at ZNF365 was mainly associated with ER-positive breast cancer for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. We also found for the first time that rs67397200 at 19p13.1 was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer for BRCA1 (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05–1.29; P = 3.8 × 10−4) and BRCA2 mutation carriers (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10–1.52; P = 1.8 × 10−3). Conclusions: 19p13.1 and ZNF365 are susceptibility loci for ovarian cancer and ER subtypes of breast cancer among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Impact: These findings can lead to an improved understanding of tumor development and may prove useful for breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 21(4); 645–57. ©2012 AACR.

Abstract Background: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a lifetime breast cancer risk of 40% to 80%, suggesting the presence of risk modifiers. We previously identified significant associations in genetic variants in the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling pathway. Here, we investigate additional IGF signaling genes as risk modifiers for breast cancer development in BRCA carriers. Methods: A cohort of 1,019 BRCA1 and 500 BRCA2 mutation carriers were genotyped for 99 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in 13 genes. Proportional hazards regression was used to model time from birth to diagnosis of breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers separately. For linkage disequilibrium (LD) blocks with multiple SNPs, an additive genetic model was used. For an SNP analysis, no additivity assumptions were made. Results: Significant associations were found between risk of breast cancer and LD blocks in IGF2 for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers (global P values of 0.009 for BRCA1 and 0.007 for BRCA2), HTRA1 for BRCA1 carriers (global P value of 0.005), and MMP3 for BRCA2 carriers (global P = 0.0000007 for BRCA2). Conclusions: We identified significant associations of genetic variants involved in IGF signaling. With the known interaction of BRCA1 and IGF signaling and the loss of PTEN in a majority of BRCA1 tumors, this suggests that signaling through AKT may modify breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers. Impact: These results suggest potential avenues for future research targeting the IGF signaling pathway in modifying risk in BRCA1and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(8); 1690–702. ©2011 AACR.

Ephedra has been commonly used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) without significant adverse effects. Ephedra-containing dietary supplements are widely used in the United States to promote weight reduction and energy enhancement. However, there are significant safety concerns regarding the use of ephedra-containing dietary supplements, especially when such use occurs by consumers without medical supervision. This article reviews and contrasts the usage of ephedra as a dietary supplement in the US against an herbal medication in TCM. The potential adverse effects of ephedra-containing dietary supplements are also reviewed.