Citations

Background Data collection and review were identified as major contributors to the cost of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Purpose We proposed and assessed a novel alternative for long-term clinical trial follow-up based on the data captured through an accredited Cancer Registry (CR) that is part of the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods Patients from Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N934653 (COST) trial (98 patients) and the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0030 trial (55 patients) were included in the study. Demographic, treatment, and long-term outcome data were compared between the hospital-based CR and the RCTs’ databases. Concordances were used to estimate the agreement between two databases. Kaplan—Meier curves were plotted to examine the consistency of time-to-event long-term outcomes of the CR and RCT databases. Results High concordances (>95%) were observed for most demographic and treatment variables between the CR data and RCT data. The vital status concordances were 100% and 94.5% between the CR and COST and Z0030 databases, respectively. Three discrepant death dates were observed, one in the COST trial and two in the Z0030 trial. The concordances of disease-free status between the CR and RCT databases were 99.0% and 87.3%, and 15 discrepant disease recurrence cases were identified: 4 for COST and 11 for Z0030. Limitations The analysis has been focused on patients from a single site, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, enrolled in two large RCT evaluating surgical treatments. The findings herein need to be confirmed in a broader setting, such as multi-center, multi-registry including nonsurgical trials. Conclusions CR data were nearly identical to data from two randomized phase III trials in different disease types and conducted by two different cooperative groups. The NCDB Cancer Registries represent a feasible alternative for obtaining long-term follow-up data for large clinical trials. Clinical Trials 2010; 7: 686—695. http:// ctj.sagepub.com

AbstractTwo prior studies suggest genetic counselors self‐disclose primarily because patients ask them to do so (Peters et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2006). However, scant research has investigated effects of counselor disclosure on genetic counseling processes and outcomes. In this study, 151 students (98 undergraduates, 53 graduates) completed one of three surveys describing a hypothetical genetic counseling session in which a patient at risk for FAP was considering whether to pursue testing or surveillance procedures. Dialogue was identical in all surveys, except for a final response to the question: “What would you do if you were me?” The counselor either revealed what she would do (Personal Disclosure), what other patients have done (Professional Disclosure), or deflected the question (No Disclosure). Imagining themselves as the patient, participants wrote a response to the counselor and indicated their perceptions of her. Participants rated thenon‐disclosingcounselor significantly lower in social attractiveness than either disclosing counselor, and less satisfying than theprofessional disclosingcounselor. Analysis of written responses yielded four themes: Made Decision, Sought Information, Expressed Thoughts/Feelings, and No Decision. Practice implications and research recommendations are provided.

Abstract This study represents a multiplex cytokine analysis of serum from a 10-month randomized, controlled trial of 238 subjects that investigated the effects of selenomethionine and/or celecoxib in subjects with mild or moderate esophageal squamous dysplasia. The original chemoprevention study found that, among those with mild dysplasia, selenomethionine treatment favorably altered dysplasia grade. The current analysis found that selenomethionine downregulated interleukin (IL)-2 by 9% (P = 0.04), whereas celecoxib downregulated IL-7 by 11% (P = 0.006) and upregulated IL-13 by 17% (P = 0.008). In addition, an increase in IL-7 tertile from baseline to t10 was significantly associated with an increase in dysplasia grade, both overall [odds ratio (OR), 1.47; P = 0.03] and among those with mild dysplasia at t0 (OR, 2.53; P = 0.001). An increase in IL-2 tertile from baseline to t10 was also nonsignificantly associated with worsening dysplasia for all participants (OR, 1.32; P = 0.098) and significantly associated with worsening dysplasia among those with mild dysplasia at baseline (OR, 2.0; P = 0.01). The association of increased IL-2 with worsening dysplasia remained significant in those on selenomethionine treatment who began the trial with mild dysplasia (OR, 2.52; P = 0.03). The current study shows that selenomethionine supplementation decreased serum IL-2 levels, whereas celecoxib treatment decreased IL-7 levels and increased IL-13 levels during a 10-month randomized chemoprevention trial. An increase in IL-2 or IL-7 was associated with increased severity of dysplasia over the course of the trial, especially in those who began the trial with mild dysplasia. The favorable effect of selenomethionine on esophageal dysplasia in the original trial may have been mediated in part by its effect in reducing the levels of IL-2. Cancer Prev Res; 3(7); 810–7. ©2010 AACR.

Abstract A common variant on chromosomal region 15q24-25.1, marked by rs1051730, was found to be associated with lung cancer risk. Here, we attempted to confirm the second variant on 15q24-25.1 in several large sporadic lung cancer populations and determined what percentage of additional risk for lung cancer is due to the genetic effect of the second variant. SNPs rs1051730 and rs481134 were genotyped in 2,818 lung cancer cases and 2,766 controls from four populations. Joint analysis of these two variants (rs1051730 and rs481134) on 15q24-25.1 identified three major haplotypes (G_T, A_C, and G_C) and provided stronger evidence for association of 15q24-25.1 with lung cancer (P = 9.72 × 10−9). These two variants represent three levels of risk associated with lung cancer. The most common haplotype G_T is neutral; the haplotype A_C is associated with increased risk for lung cancer with 5.0% higher frequency in cases than in controls [P = 1.68 × 10−7; odds ratio (OR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.14–1.35]; whereas the haplotype G_C is associated with reduced risk for lung cancer with 4.4% lower frequency in cases than in controls (P = 7.39 × 10−7; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87). We further showed that these two genetic variants on 15q24-25.1 independently influence lung cancer risk (rs1051730: P = 4.42 × 10−11; OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.46–1.74; rs481134: P = 7.01 × 10−4; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72–0.92). The second variant on 15q24-25.1, marked by rs481134, explains an additional 13.2% of population attributable risk for lung cancer. Cancer Res; 70(8); 3128–35. ©2010 AACR.

Abstract Cigarette smoking is the major cause for lung cancer, but genetic factors also affect susceptibility. We studied families that included multiple relatives affected by lung cancer. Results from linkage analysis showed strong evidence that a region of chromosome 6q affects lung cancer risk. To characterize the effects that this region of chromosome 6q region has on lung cancer risk, we identified a haplotype that segregated with lung cancer. We then performed Cox regression analysis to estimate the differential effects that smoking behaviors have on lung cancer risk according to whether each individual carried a risk-associated haplotype or could not be classified and was assigned unknown haplotypic status. We divided smoking exposures into never smokers, light smokers (<20 pack-years), moderate smokers (20 to <40 pack-years), and heavy smokers (≥40 pack-years). Comparing results according to smoking behavior stratified by carrier status, compared with never smokers, there was weakly increasing risk for increasing smoking behaviors, with the hazards ratios being 3.44, 4.91, and 5.18, respectively, for light, moderate, or heavy smokers, whereas among the individuals from families without the risk haplotype, the risks associated with smoking increased strongly with exposure, the hazards ratios being, respectively, 4.25, 9.17, and 11.89 for light, moderate, and heavy smokers. The never smoking carriers had a 4.71-fold higher risk than the never smoking individuals without known risk haplotypes. These results identify a region of chromosome 6q that increases risk for lung cancer and that confers particularly higher risks to never and light smokers. Cancer Res; 70(6); 2359–67

Abstract Background: Genetic factors play important roles in lung cancer susceptibility. In this study, we replicated the association of 5p15.33 and 6p21.33 with familial lung cancer. Taking into account the previously identified genetic susceptibility variants on 6q23-25/RGS17 and 15q24-25.1, we further determined the cumulative association of these four genetic regions and the population attributable risk percent of familial lung cancer they account for. Methods: One hundred ninety-four case patients and 219 cancer-free control subjects from the Genetic Epidemiology of Lung Cancer Consortium were used for the association analysis. Each familial case was chosen from one high-risk lung cancer family that has three or more affected members. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) on chromosomal regions 5p15.33, 6p21.33, 6q23-25/RGS17, and 15q24-25.1 were assessed for their associations with familial lung cancer. The cumulative association of the four chromosomal regions with familial lung cancer was evaluated with the use of a linear logistic model. Population attributable risk percent was calculated for each SNP using risk ratio. Results: SNP rs31489 showed the strongest evidence of familial lung cancer association on 5p15.33 (P = 2 × 10−4; odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.77), whereas rs3117582 showed a weak association on 6p21.33 (P = 0.09; odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-2.31). Analysis of a combination of SNPs from the four regions provided a stronger cumulative association with familial lung cancer (P = 6.70 × 10−6) than any individual SNPs. The risk of lung cancer was increased to 3- to 11-fold among those subjects who had at least one copy of risk allele at each region compared with subjects without any of the risk factors. These four genetic regions contribute to a total of 34.6% of familial lung cancer in smokers. Conclusions: The SNPs in four chromosomal regions have a cumulative and significant association with familial lung cancer and account for about one-third of the population attributable risk for familial lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(2); 517–24

Abstract Recent genome-wide association studies have linked the chromosome 15q24-25.1 locus to nicotine addiction and lung cancer susceptibility. To refine the 15q24-25.1 locus, we performed a haplotype-based association analysis of 194 familial lung cases and 219 cancer-free controls from the Genetic Epidemiology of Lung Cancer Consortium (GELCC) collection, and used proliferation and apoptosis analyses to determine which gene(s) in the 15q24-25.1 locus mediates effects on lung cancer cell growth in vitro. We identified two distinct subregions, hapL (P = 3.20 × 10−6) and hapN (P = 1.51 × 10−6), which were significantly associated with familial lung cancer. hapL encompasses IREB2, LOC123688, and PSMA4, and hapN encompasses the three nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit genes CHRNA5, CHRNA3, and CHRNB4. Examination of the genes around hapL revealed that PSMA4 plays a role in promoting cancer cell proliferation. PSMA4 mRNA levels were increased in lung tumors compared with normal lung tissues. Down-regulation of PSMA4 expression decreased proteasome activity and induced apoptosis. Proteasome dysfunction leads to many diseases including cancer, and drugs that inhibit proteasome activity show promise as a form of cancer treatment. Genes around hapN were also investigated, but did not show any direct effect on lung cancer cell proliferation. We concluded that PSMA4 is a strong candidate mediator of lung cancer cell growth, and may directly affect lung cancer susceptibility through its modulation of cell proliferation and apoptosis. [Cancer Res 2009;69(19):7844–50]