Citations

Purpose Recent advances in DNA sequencing have led to the development of breast cancer susceptibility gene panels for germline genetic testing of patients. We assessed the frequency of mutations in 17 predisposition genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer to determine the utility of germline genetic testing for those with TNBC. Patients and Methods Patients with TNBC (N = 1,824) unselected for family history of breast or ovarian cancer were recruited through 12 studies, and germline DNA was sequenced to identify mutations. Results Deleterious mutations were identified in 14.6% of all patients. Of these, 11.2% had mutations in the BRCA1 (8.5%) and BRCA2 (2.7%) genes. Deleterious mutations in 15 other predisposition genes were detected in 3.7% of patients, with the majority observed in genes involved in homologous recombination, including PALB2 (1.2%) and BARD1, RAD51D, RAD51C, and BRIP1 (0.3% to 0.5%). Patients with TNBC with mutations were diagnosed at an earlier age (P < .001) and had higher-grade tumors (P = .01) than those without mutations. Conclusion Deleterious mutations in predisposition genes are present at high frequency in patients with TNBC unselected for family history of cancer. Mutation prevalence estimates suggest that patients with TNBC, regardless of age at diagnosis or family history of cancer, should be considered for germline genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Although mutations in other predisposition genes are observed among patients with TNBC, better cancer risk estimates are needed before these mutations are used for clinical risk assessment in relatives.

Abstract Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker). Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4210–7. ©2014 AACR.

This study investigated the effects of visual and inferential complexity on the pictured scene descriptions of right-hemisphere-damaged (RHD) and non-brain-damaged (NBD) adults. The number and accuracy of noun phrases generated by both groups were significantly affected by the inferential complexity of pictured scenes, but not by their visual complexity (as measured by the number of objects and amount of object embedding in the scenes). RHD subjects, particularly those with high levels of neglect, were significantly impaired relative to the NBD subjects in generating accurate inferences from the pictures, but not in their ability to recognize and identify pictured elements.

ScopeWe reevaluated previously reported associations between variants in pathways of one‐carbon (1‐C) (folate) transfer genes and ovarian carcinoma (OC) risk, and in related pathways of purine and pyrimidine metabolism, and assessed interactions with folate intake.Methods and resultsOdds ratios (OR) for 446 genetic variants were estimated among 13 410 OC cases and 22 635 controls, and among 2281 cases and 3444 controls with folate information. Following multiple testing correction, the most significant main effect associations were for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) variants rs11587873 (OR = 0.92; p = 6 × 10−5) and rs828054 (OR = 1.06; p = 1 × 10−4). Thirteen variants in the pyrimidine metabolism genes, DPYD, DPYS, PPAT, and TYMS, also interacted significantly with folate in a multivariant analysis (corrected p = 9.9 × 10−6) but collectively explained only 0.2% of OC risk. Although no other associations were significant after multiple testing correction, variants in SHMT1 in 1‐C transfer, previously reported with OC, suggested lower risk at higher folate (pinteraction = 0.03–0.006).ConclusionVariation in pyrimidine metabolism genes, particularly DPYD, which was previously reported to be associated with OC, may influence risk; however, stratification by folate intake is unlikely to modify disease risk appreciably in these women. SHMT1 SNP‐by‐folate interactions are plausible but require further validation. Polymorphisms in selected genes in purine metabolism were not associated with OC.

Genetic College Many genomic elements in humans are associated with behavior, including educational attainment. In a genome-wide association study including more than 100,000 samples, Rietveld et al. (p. 1467 , published online 30 May; see the Perspective by Flint and Munafò ) looked for genes related to educational attainment in Caucasians. Small genetic effects at three loci appeared to impact educational attainment.

Abstract Background: There are several well-established environmental risk factors for ovarian cancer, and recent genome-wide association studies have also identified six variants that influence disease risk. However, the interplay between such risk factors and susceptibility loci has not been studied. Methods: Data from 14 ovarian cancer case–control studies were pooled, and stratified analyses by each environmental risk factor with tests for heterogeneity were conducted to determine the presence of interactions for all histologic subtypes. A genetic “risk score” was created to consider the effects of all six variants simultaneously. A multivariate model was fit to examine the association between all environmental risk factors and genetic risk score on ovarian cancer risk. Results: Among 7,374 controls and 5,566 cases, there was no statistical evidence of interaction between the six SNPs or genetic risk score and the environmental risk factors on ovarian cancer risk. In a main effects model, women in the highest genetic risk score quartile had a 65% increased risk of ovarian cancer compared with women in the lowest [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.48–1.84]. Analyses by histologic subtype yielded risk differences across subtype for endometriosis (Phet &lt; 0.001), parity (Phet &lt; 0.01), and tubal ligation (Phet = 0.041). Conclusions: The lack of interactions suggests that a multiplicative model is the best fit for these data. Under such a model, we provide a robust estimate of the effect of each risk factor that sets the stage for absolute risk prediction modeling that considers both environmental and genetic risk factors. Further research into the observed differences in risk across histologic subtype is warranted. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(5); 880–90. ©2013 AACR.

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines for management and treatment of maladaptive aggression in the areas of family engagement, assessment and diagnosis, and initial management, appropriate for use by primary care clinicians and mental health providers. Maladaptive aggression in youth is increasingly treated with psychotropic medications, particularly second-generation antipsychotic agents. Multiple treatment modalities are available, but guidance for clinicians’ assessment and treatment strategies has been inadequately developed. To address this need, the Center for Education and Research on Mental Health Therapeutics and the REACH Institute convened a steering group of national experts to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations for maladaptive aggression in youth. METHODS: Evidence was assembled and evaluated in a multistep process that included a systematic review of published literature; a survey of experts on recommended treatment practices; a consensus conference that brought together clinical experts along with researchers, policy makers, and family advocates; and subsequent review and discussion by the steering committee of successive drafts of the recommendations. The Center for Education and Research on Mental Health Therapeutics Treatment of Maladaptive Aggression in Youth (T-MAY) guidelines reflect a synthesis of the available evidence, based on this multistep process. RESULTS: The current article describes 9 recommendations for family engagement, assessment, and diagnosis as key prerequisites for treatment selection and initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the family and social context in which aggressive symptoms arise, and understanding the underlying psychiatric conditions that may be associated with aggression, are essential to treatment planning.