Citations

Abstract Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAID) are associated with modest inconsistent reductions in breast cancer risk in population-based cohorts, whereas two focused studies of patients with benign breast disease (BBD) have found lower risk with NSAID use. Given that BBD includes fibroinflammatory lesions linked to elevated breast cancer risk, we assessed whether NSAID use was associated with lower breast cancer risk among patients with BBD. Participants were postmenopausal women in the Cancer Prevention Study-II (CPS-II), a prospective study of cancer incidence and mortality, who completed follow-up surveys in 1997 with follow-up through June 30, 2015. History of BBD, NSAID use, and covariate data were updated biennially. This analysis included 23,615 patients with BBD and 36,751 patients with non-BBD, including 3,896 incident breast cancers over an average of 12.72 years of follow-up among participants. NSAID use, overall and by formulation, recency, duration, and pills per month was analyzed versus breast cancer risk overall and by BBD status using multivariable-adjusted Cox models; BBD status and NSAID use were modeled as time-dependent exposures. Patients with BBD who reported using NSAIDs experienced lower breast cancer risk (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78–0.97), with similar effects for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers [HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74–0.97] and ER-negative breast cancers (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59–1.29); among women without BBD, NSAID use was unrelated to risk (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92–1.13; Pinteraction = 0.04). Associations stratified by age, obesity, menopausal hormone use, and cardiovascular disease were similar. Among patients with BBD, NSAID use appears linked to lower breast cancer risk. Further studies to assess the value of NSAID use among patients with BBD are warranted. Prevention Relevance: We examined whether NSAID use, a modifiable exposure, is associated with breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women from the Cancer Prevention Study-II with self-reported benign breast disease, an often inflammatory condition associated with higher rates of breast cancer.

Abstract Invariant Natural Killer T (iNKT) cells are an innate lineage of lymphocytes that can produce copious amount of cytokines within hours of stimulation. In the thymus, positive selection into the iNKT cell lineage occurs at the double positive (DP) stage, before maturation through various stages (stage 0-3) to complete development. NKAP, a transcriptional repressor, is required for conventional T lymphocyte development and maturation. NKAP interacts with Hdac3 for its repressor function. Previously, using CD4-cre NKAP cKO mice, we have shown that NKAP is required for positive selection into the iNKT cell lineage. To study the role of NKAP in later developmental stages, we generated PLZF-cre NKAP cKO mice with NKAP deletion occurring after entry into the iNKT lineage at stage 0. In the PLZF-cre NKAP cKO mice we observed a significant decrease in the absolute number of iNKTs with a 20-fold reduction at stage 2 and 200-fold reduction at stage 3. This defect is cell intrinsic and cannot be rescued by over-expression of Bcl-XL. Our preliminary results indicate that there may be a block in iNKT cell maturation, as expression of transcription factors Tbet, Gata3, and ROR-γt that define NKT1, NKT2 and NKT17 lineages respectively, are decreased in PLZF-cre NKAP cKO. PLZF-cre Hdac3 cKO mice have a similar defect in iNKT development. Thus, NKAP together with Hdac3 may regulate iNKT cell development and maturation.

AbstractBackgroundDyadic (self and study partner) subjective reports of an individual’s recent cognitive and functional decline are an efficient approach to facilitate identification of older adults with, and at risk for, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Such methods can be easily adapted for remote administration, but few studies have investigated the ability of remotely‐collected, unsupervised dyadic subjective reports to accurately detect MCI and cognitive decline.MethodsIn 289 older adults enrolled in the Brain health Registry (BHR), with clinically‐confirmed diagnoses of Cognitively‐unimpaired (CU) or MCI, we identified the optimal combination of remote measures to accurately distinguish CU from MCI. We then externally validated our predictive model in 217 participants enrolled in a separate cohort, Validation of Online Methods to Predict Cognitive Decline (eVAL). Predictors included Cogstate Brief Battery One Card Learning (OCL) accuracy; self‐ and study partner‐reported memory concern (SMCs); performance on online adaptations of Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog, self‐ and study partner‐report versions), Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form (GDS); family history of AD, age, gender, and education. We calculated 10‐fold cross validated area under the ROC curves (cvAUC), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the percentage of participants correctly classified (accuracy) for all models. Likelihood ratio (LR) tests were used to compare model fits.ResultsIn the BHR cohort, models including dyad‐report ECog, family history of AD, GDS, and Cogstate OCL scores distinguished CU from MCI with the highest accuracy (cvAUC = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.83, 0.92; accuracy = 85.5%). Models excluding study partner‐report ECog distinguished diagnostic groups with moderate accuracy (cvAUC = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.78, 0.85; accuracy = 75.9%) When applied to the validation cohort, the optimal training model including dyadic report performed with moderate accuracy ( Table 2 ). In the validation cohort, inclusion of study partner (but not self) report SMC, in addition to dyadic‐report ECog, improved model fit (LR test p<0.01).ConclusionsRemotely‐collected dyadic subjective measures, along with other remote measures, accurately distinguish CU from MCI. Subjective cognitive and functional decline and concerns about memory problems independently contribute to diagnostic discrimination. Results support future utilization of remote dyadic subjective measures to efficiently identify older adults with MCI for prodromal AD clinical trials, and in clinical care settings.

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.