Citations

Abstract The emergency department ( ED ) occupies a unique position within the healthcare system, serving as a safety net for vulnerable patients, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or medical diagnosis. Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents special challenges when used with vulnerable population groups. The differing circumstances, needs, and perspectives of vulnerable groups invoke issues of provider bias, disrespect, judgmental attitudes, and lack of cultural competence, as well as patient mistrust and the consequences of their social and economic disenfranchisement. A research agenda that includes community‐engaged approaches, mixed‐methods studies, and cost‐effectiveness analyses is proposed to address the following questions: 1) What are the best processes/formats for SDM among racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, social, or otherwise vulnerable groups who experience disadvantage in the healthcare system? 2) What organizational or systemic changes are needed to support SDM in the ED whenever appropriate? 3) What competencies are needed to enable emergency providers to consider patients’ situation/context in an unbiased way? 4) How do we teach these competencies to students and residents? 5) How do we cultivate these competencies in practicing emergency physicians, nurses, and other clinical providers who lack them? The authors also identify the importance of using accurate, group‐specific data to inform risk estimates for SDM decision aids for vulnerable populations and the need for increased ED ‐based care coordination and transitional care management capabilities to create additional care options that align with the needs and preferences of vulnerable populations.

Background The rarity of mutations in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM make it difficult to estimate precisely associated cancer risks. Population-based family studies have provided evidence that at least some of these mutations are associated with breast cancer risk as high as those associated with rare BRCA2 mutations. We aimed to estimate the relative risks associated with specific rare variants in PALB2, CHEK2 and ATM via a multicentre case-control study. Methods We genotyped 10 rare mutations using the custom iCOGS array: PALB2 c.1592delT, c.2816T>G and c.3113G>A, CHEK2 c.349A>G, c.538C>T, c.715G>A, c.1036C>T, c.1312G>T, and c.1343T>G and ATM c.7271T>G. We assessed associations with breast cancer risk (42 671 cases and 42 164 controls), as well as prostate (22 301 cases and 22 320 controls) and ovarian (14 542 cases and 23 491 controls) cancer risk, for each variant. Results For European women, strong evidence of association with breast cancer risk was observed for PALB2 c.1592delT OR 3.44 (95% CI 1.39 to 8.52, p=7.1×10−5), PALB2 c.3113G>A OR 4.21 (95% CI 1.84 to 9.60, p=6.9×10−8) and ATM c.7271T>G OR 11.0 (95% CI 1.42 to 85.7, p=0.0012). We also found evidence of association with breast cancer risk for three variants in CHEK2, c.349A>G OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.95), c.1036C>T OR 5.06 (95% CI 1.09 to 23.5) and c.538C>T OR 1.33 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.67) (p≤0.017). Evidence for prostate cancer risk was observed for CHEK2 c.1343T>G OR 3.03 (95% CI 1.53 to 6.03, p=0.0006) for African men and CHEK2 c.1312G>T OR 2.21 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.63, p=0.030) for European men. No evidence of association with ovarian cancer was found for any of these variants. Conclusions This report adds to accumulating evidence that at least some variants in these genes are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer that is clinically important.

Abstract Background: Many epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk factors relate to hormone exposure and elevated estrogen levels are associated with obesity in postmenopausal women. Therefore, we hypothesized that gene–environment interactions related to hormone-related risk factors could differ between obese and non-obese women. Methods: We considered interactions between 11,441 SNPs within 80 candidate genes related to hormone biosynthesis and metabolism and insulin-like growth factors with six hormone-related factors (oral contraceptive use, parity, endometriosis, tubal ligation, hormone replacement therapy, and estrogen use) and assessed whether these interactions differed between obese and non-obese women. Interactions were assessed using logistic regression models and data from 14 case–control studies (6,247 cases; 10,379 controls). Histotype-specific analyses were also completed. Results: SNPs in the following candidate genes showed notable interaction: IGF1R (rs41497346, estrogen plus progesterone hormone therapy, histology = all, P = 4.9 × 10−6) and ESR1 (rs12661437, endometriosis, histology = all, P = 1.5 × 10−5). The most notable obesity–gene–hormone risk factor interaction was within INSR (rs113759408, parity, histology = endometrioid, P = 8.8 × 10−6). Conclusions: We have demonstrated the feasibility of assessing multifactor interactions in large genetic epidemiology studies. Follow-up studies are necessary to assess the robustness of our findings for ESR1, CYP11A1, IGF1R, CYP11B1, INSR, and IGFBP2. Future work is needed to develop powerful statistical methods able to detect these complex interactions. Impact: Assessment of multifactor interaction is feasible, and, here, suggests that the relationship between genetic variants within candidate genes and hormone-related risk factors may vary EOC susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(5); 780–90. ©2016 AACR.