Citations

Abstract Breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers are hormone-related and may have a shared genetic basis, but this has not been investigated systematically by genome-wide association (GWA) studies. Meta-analyses combining the largest GWA meta-analysis data sets for these cancers totaling 112,349 cases and 116,421 controls of European ancestry, all together and in pairs, identified at P < 10−8 seven new cross-cancer loci: three associated with susceptibility to all three cancers (rs17041869/2q13/BCL2L11; rs7937840/11q12/INCENP; rs1469713/19p13/GATAD2A), two breast and ovarian cancer risk loci (rs200182588/9q31/SMC2; rs8037137/15q26/RCCD1), and two breast and prostate cancer risk loci (rs5013329/1p34/NSUN4; rs9375701/6q23/L3MBTL3). Index variants in five additional regions previously associated with only one cancer also showed clear association with a second cancer type. Cell-type–specific expression quantitative trait locus and enhancer–gene interaction annotations suggested target genes with potential cross-cancer roles at the new loci. Pathway analysis revealed significant enrichment of death receptor signaling genes near loci with P < 10−5 in the three-cancer meta-analysis. Significance: We demonstrate that combining large-scale GWA meta-analysis findings across cancer types can identify completely new risk loci common to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. We show that the identification of such cross-cancer risk loci has the potential to shed new light on the shared biology underlying these hormone-related cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(9); 1052–67. ©2016 AACR. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 932

The use of pulse wave analysis may guide the provider in making choices about blood pressure treatment in prehypertensive or hypertensive patients. However, there is little clinical guidance on how to interpret and use pulse wave analysis data in the management of these patients. A panel of clinical researchers and clinicians who study and clinically use pulse wave analysis was assembled to discuss strategies for using pulse wave analysis in the clinical encounter. This manuscript presents an approach to the clinical application of pulse waveform analysis, how to interpret central pressure waveforms, and how to use existing knowledge about the pharmacodynamic effect of antihypertensive drug classes in combination with brachial and central pressure profiles in clinical practice. The discussion was supplemented by case‐based examples provided by panel members, which the authors hope will provoke discussion on how to understand and incorporate pulse wave analysis into clinical practice.

Background Celiac disease (CD) occurs in approximately 1% of the Western population. It is a lifelong disorder that is associated with impaired quality of life (QOL) and an excessive risk of comorbidity and death. Objectives To review the literature on screening for CD in relation to the current World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for mass screening. Methods We performed a PubMed search to identify indexed papers on CD screening with a publication date from 1900 until 1 June 2014. When we deemed an abstract relevant, we read the corresponding paper in detail. Results CD fulfills several WHO criteria for mass screening (high prevalence, available treatment and difficult clinical detection), but it has not yet been established that treatment of asymptomatic CD may reduce the excessive risk of severe complications, leading to higher QOL nor that it is cost‐effective. Conclusions Current evidence is not sufficient to support mass screening for CD, but active case‐finding may be appropriate, as we recognize that most patients with CD will still be missed by this strategy. Although proof of benefit is still lacking, screening for CD may be appropriate in high‐risk groups.

A multidisciplinary panel of 18 physicians and 3 non-physicians from eight countries (Sweden, UK, Argentina, Australia, Italy, Finland, Norway and the USA) reviewed the literature on diagnosis and management of adult coeliac disease (CD). This paper presents the recommendations of the British Society of Gastroenterology. Areas of controversies were explored through phone meetings and web surveys. Nine working groups examined the following areas of CD diagnosis and management: classification of CD; genetics and immunology; diagnostics; serology and endoscopy; follow-up; gluten-free diet; refractory CD and malignancies; quality of life; novel treatments; patient support; and screening for CD.