Citations

Clear

6 citation(s) found for "Sun, Pan".

Amyloid PET Quantitation and Centiloid Thresholds in the Diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease
Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Chiotis, Konstantinos, Allen, Isabel E., Rabinovici, Gil D., Joie, Renaud La , Group, Meta-Centiloid Study, Apostolova, Liana G. , Asken, Breton M., Benzinger, Th., Betthauser, Tobey J., Bluma, Marina, Bombois, Stephanie, Bourgeat, Pierrick, Bouteloup, Vincent , Braskie, Meredith N., Brendel, Matthias, Brickman, Adam M., Bryant, Natalie, Bullich, Santiago , Carrillo, Maria C., Casaletto, Kaitlin, Cash, David M., Chang, Chiung-Chih, CHANG, H L, Chao, Yishu , Collij, Lyduine E., Corrada, Maria M., Craft, Suzanne , Dickerson, Bradford C., Dubois, Bruno, Dufouil, Carole, Fajardo, Alfonso, Farrar, Gill , Fortea, Juan, Frings, Lars , Frisoni, Giovanni B., Gardner, Raquel C., Gnörich, Johannes , Gordon, Brian A., Gu, Yuna , Guan, Yihui, Guo, Tengfei, Hanseeuw, Bernard J., Hansson, Oskar, Harrison, Theresa M., Huang, Qi, Huang, ST , Iaccarino, Leonardo, Ishii, Kazunari, Ishi, Kenji, Jagust, William J., Johnson, Sterling C., Kato, Takashi, Katsumi, Yuta, Kaye, Jeffrey, Kolinger, Guilherme D., Kramer, Joel H. , Landau, Susan M., Landeau, Brigitte, Lao, Patrick J., Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J., Lowe, Val J. , Luchsinger, José A., Mao, Xiaoxie, March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L., Meyer, Philipp T., Mezenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C., Franquesa‐Mullerat, María , Nakamura, Akinori, Nordberg, Agneta, O’Brien, John T., O’Bryant, Sid E., Pappas, Ioannis, Peretti, Debora E., Rowe, Christopher C., Rowe, James B., Schwartz, Daniel L., Seo, Sang Won , Shekari, Mahnaz, Smith, Ruben, Snyder, Heather M. , Sokolowski, Andrzej, Sperling, Reisa A., Sun, Pan, Taggett, Jacinda Z., Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Vaillancourt, David E., Giessen, Elsmarieke van de, Vijverberg, Jort, Villemagne, Victor L. , Villeneuve, Sylvia , Wang, Wei-en, Weiner, Michael, Woodworth, Davis, Xiao, Cally , Xie, F, Yoon, Yeojun, Yun, Mijin, Severanc, A4, ABIDE, ADNI*, ADNI-DoD, AgeWell, AIBL, AMYPAD, BACS, BATON, BIOCARD, BLSA, BioFINDER-2, BrANCH, CPAS, DETECT-AD, GEMS, GHABS, HABS, HABS-HD, IDEAS, IMAP, INSIGHT-preAD, Insight46, K-ROAD, LEADS, MCSA, MULNIAD, MEMENTO, SCAN, PREVENT-AD, SPIN,, Corrada, María M. , La Joie, Renaud , Blazhenets, Ganna , Chiotis, Konstantinos , Allen, Isabel Elaine , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Asken, Breton M. , Bejanin, Alexandre , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Blūma, Marina , Bombois, Stéphanie , Bourgeat, Pierrick , Braskie, Meredith N. , Brendel, Matthias , Brickman, Adam M. , Carrillo, María C. , Casaletto, Kaitlin B. , Cash, David M. , Chang, Chiung‐Chih , Chang, Hsin‐I , Chêne, Geneviève , Chételat, Gaël , Coath, William , Collij, Lyduine , Colmant, Lise , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , Dubois, Bruno , Dufouil, Carole , Fortea, Juan , Garibotto, Valentina , Gordon, Brian A. , Guan, Yihui , Guo, Tengfei , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Hansson, Oskar , Harrison, Theresa M. , Iaccarino, Leonardo , Ishii, Kazunari , Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Katsumi, Yuta , Kaye, Jeffrey , Koeppe, Robert A. , Kolinger, Guilherme Domingues , Landau, Susan , Landeau, Brigitte , Lao, Patrick , Lee, Sangwon, Lleó, Alberto , Lopresti, Brian J. , Malpetti, Maura , March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L. , Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C. , Nakamura, Akinori , Nordberg, Agneta , O'Brien, John Tiernan , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Pappas, Ioannis , Quenon, Lisa , Rowe, Christopher Cleon , Rowe, James B. , Rudolph, Marc D. , Salvadó, Gemma , Schott, Jonathan M. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C. , Smith, Ruben, Sokolowski, Andrzej, Sperling, Reisa Anne , Sun, Pan , Taggett, Jacinda , Toga, Arthur W. , Vaillancourt, David E. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Villain, Nicolas , Wang, Wei‐en , Weiner, Michael W. , Xie, Fang , Young, Christina B. , Yun, M R

Mayo Clinic

JAMA | July 13, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1001/jama.2026.13116 | PMID 42441390 Get It

Importance Amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is increasingly used in research and clinical settings to determine the etiology of cognitive decline and eligibility for amyloid-targeting therapies. To assist with amyloid PET evaluation and to guide clinical decision-making, images can be quantified in a standardized unit called Centiloid, the interpretation of which can vary according to the method and threshold used. Objective To collect Centiloid values from available studies and determine robust positivity cutoffs using data-driven methods and correspondence with visual reads. Data Sources PubMed search (October 2024) identified studies with Centiloid values. Corresponding authors were invited to share individual participant data. Additional data were obtained through access-controlled repositories and conference outreach (July 2024-July 2025). Study Selection Studies were included if they provided Centiloids, radiotracer, age, and sex. Data Extraction and Synthesis Each study was analyzed using a unified statistical pipeline; study estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures Gaussian mixture models (GMMs) were fitted to Centiloid values for each study. In studies with a bimodal distribution (per integrated completed likelihood), single cutoffs for positivity were set as mean plus 2 SDs of the lower gaussian component. Using GMMs, a double-cutoff approach defined a lower certainty range using a 90% posterior probability cutoff for assignment to the low (amyloid-negative) vs high (amyloid-positive) component. An alternative Centiloid cutoff was derived from maximizing the correspondence (Cohen κ) with the binary visual reads when available. Results This meta-analysis included cross-sectional amyloid PET scans acquired with 5 radiotracers from 49 227 participants across 53 studies from 15 countries (mean age, 71 years; 54% female, 62% cognitively impaired). The data-driven GMM approach identified a bimodal distribution in 51 studies (n = 48 786), resulting in a single cutoff for positivity of 18 Centiloids (95% CI,16-19; I 2 = 97%). The double-cutoff approach revealed high confidence for interpreting scans as negative when Centiloid values were lower than 11 (95% CI, 9-13; I 2 = 95%) and interpreting scans as positive if Centiloid values were higher than 26 (95% CI, 24-28; I 2 = 95%). In analyses of correspondence with binary (positive or negative) visual reads of amyloid PET scans (n = 35 045; 36 studies), Centiloids were highly predictive of visual positivity (Cohen κ, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89; I 2 = 96%) with a cutoff of 27 Centiloids (95% CI, 24-30; I 2 = 80%). Conclusions and Relevance In this individual participant data meta-analysis, positivity cutoffs converged around 18 Centiloids (data-driven) and 27 Centiloids (visual reads). Findings from a double-cutoff analysis suggest that scans in the 11 to 26 Centiloid range should be interpreted with caution depending on the context of use.
Every Centiloid, from Everywhere, All at Once
Snyder, Heather M. , Apostolova, Liana G., Asken, Breton M., Bombois, Stéphanie, Bourgeat, Pierrick, Braskie, Meredith N., Carrillo, Maria C., Casaletto, Kaitlin B, Cash, David M, Chang, Hsin‐I., Chao, Yishu , Chételat, Gael, Collij, Lyduine E., Dickerson, Brad C., Dubois, Bruno, Valdez, Alfonso Fajardo, Farrar, Gill , Fortea, Juan M., Frisoni, Giovanni B, Gu, Yuna , Guo, Tengfei, Hanseeuw, Bernard J, Hansson, Oskar H., Harrison, Theresa, Huang, Qi, Huang, Shu‐Hua , Ishii, K, Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J., Katou, Rikio, Koeppe, Robert A., Kramer, Joel H, Landau, Susan M., Landeau, Brigitte, Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J, Lowe, Val J. , Mao, Xiaoxie, March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L., Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C., Franquesa‐Mullerat, María , Nakamura, Akinori, O'Bryant, Sid E., Pappas, Ioannis, Rowe, Christopher C., Salvadó, Gemma, Schott, Jonathan M, Schwartz, Daniel, Schwarz, Christopher G, Seo, Sang Won, Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C, Smith, Ruben, Sokolowski, Andrzej, Soleimani‐Meigooni, David, Sperling, Reisa A., Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W., Vaillancourt, D., Giessen, Elsmarieke van de, Flier, Wiesje M. van der, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Villemagne, Victor L., Villeneuve, Sylvia , Wang, Wei‐En, Weiner, Michael S. W., Xiao, Cally , Xie, Fang, Yoon, Yeojun, Yun, M R , Rabinovici, Gil D., Joie, Renaud La, Consortia, AMYPAD and LEADS, Blazhenets, Ganna , Apostolova, Liana G. , Asken, Breton M. , Bejanin, Alexandre , Bombois, Stéphanie , Bourgeat, Pierrick , Braskie, Meredith N. , Carrillo, María C. , Casaletto, Kaitlin B. , Cash, David M. , Chang, Chia‐Hsuin , Chang, Hsin‐I , Chételat, Gaël , Coath, William , Collij, Lyduine , Colmant, Lise , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , Dubois, Bruno , Fortea, Juan , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Gardner, Raquel C. , Garibotto, Valentina , Guo, Tengfei , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Hansson, Oskar , Harrison, Theresa M. , Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J. , Koeppe, Robert A. , Kramer, Joel H. , Landau, Susan , Landeau, Brigitte , Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J. , March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L. , Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C. , Nakamura, Akinori , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Pappas, Ioannis , Peretti, Débora Elisa , Quenon, Lisa , Rowe, Christopher C., Salvadó, Gemma , Schott, Jonathan M. , Schwartz, Daniel L., Schwarz, Christopher G. , Seo, Sang Won , Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C. , Smith, Ruben, Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W. , Vaillancourt, David E. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Flier, Wiesje M. van der , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Villain, Nicolas , Villemagne, Victor L. , Weiner, Michael W. , Xie, Fang , Young, Christina B. , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Joie, Renaud La

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 9, 2026 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S2 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70856_107124 Get It

Abstract Background Ten years after the original publication, the Centiloid framework is now broadly used to harmonize amyloid‐PET quantification, facilitate data sharing and comparison across cohorts, and even assist visual interpretation in clinical settings. We evaluated the global implementation of Centiloids by comparing their distribution and corresponding positivity thresholds across cohorts. Methods We gathered data from publicly available cohorts and reached out to investigators across the world to collect cross‐sectional Centiloids, demographic and clinical information, and visual read data. Gaussian mixture models (GMM, k=2) were fitted to Centiloid values for each cohort and cutoffs were calculated as mean + 2SD of the lower Gaussian. When visual reads were available, we determined Centiloid cutoffs that maximized correspondence with visual reads (Cohen's kappa). Data was combined across cohorts using random effects meta‐analyses. Results As of January 2025, we included 37 cohorts ( n = 41,678 participants) with heterogeneous pipelines, radiotracers, and clinical and demographic characteristics (Table‐1). The low Gaussian peaks ranged from ‐9 to 10CL; the meta‐analysis identified a common peak at 1CL. The second peaks were more heterogeneous (range=38‐102CL; meta‐analysis outcome=64CL). Across cohorts, the proportion of cognitively unimpaired versus impaired participants impacted the position of both peaks, with better separation in cohorts enriched in impaired individuals (Figure 1C). The meta‐analysis indicated a GMM‐based cutoff of 19CL (95%CI: 16‐21CL, Figure 1B); subgroup analyses showed no evidence of significant effect between single versus multicenter settings (17 versus 20CL, p = 0.30), MRI‐based or PET‐only processing (18 versus 19CL, p = 0.88), and no evidence of difference across radiotracers (Flutemetamol: 16CL; PIB: 17CL, Flutafuranol: 18CL, Florbetaben: 19CL, Florbetapir: 20CL, p = 0.78). In a subset of 29,496 participants with visual reads available, binary visual reads corresponded well to Centiloids (common kappa=0.86, Figure 2A). The visual read‐based cutoff of 24CL (95%CI: 21‐27CL, Figure 2B) maximized correspondence between visual read and quantification and was slightly higher than the GMM‐based cutoff. All meta‐analysis models showed high non‐random heterogeneity (I 2 >80%) across studies, suggesting non‐random differences in peaks and cutoffs. Conclusions Meta‐analysis‐based cutoffs align well with thresholds from the existing literature. High heterogeneity among studies underscores the need to investigate contributing factors, raising concerns about applying common cutoffs.
Every Centiloid, from Everywhere, All at Once
Snyder, Heather M. , Apostolova, Liana G., Bombois, Stéphanie, Bourgeat, Pierrick, Braskie, Meredith N. , Carrillo, Maria, Casaletto, Kaitlin B, Chang, C. -C., Chang, Hsin‐I., Chao, Yishu , Chetelat, Gaël, Collij, Lyduine E., Dickerson, Brad C., Dubois, Bruno, Valdez, Alfonso Fajardo, Farrar, Gill , Fortea, Juan M., Frisoni, Giovanni B, Gu, Yuna , Guo, Tengfei, Hansson, Oskar H., Huang, Q., Huang, Shu‐Hua , Ishii, Kenji, Jagust, William J., Kato, Takashi , Koeppe, R. A., Kramer, Joel H, Landau, Susan M., Landeau, Brigitte, Lee, Sangwon, Lopresti, Brian J. , Lowe, Val J. , Mao, Xiaoxie, March, Andrew, Masters, Colin L., Mézenge, Florence, Mormino, Elizabeth C. , Franquesa‐Mullerat, María , Nakamura, Akinori, O'Bryant, Sid E., Pappas, Ioannis G., Rowe, C. C., Schott, Jonathan M, Schwartz, Daniel L. , Schwarz, Christopher G, Seo, Sang Won, Shekari, Mahnaz, Smith, Ruben, Sokołowski, Andrzej , Soleimani‐Meigooni, David, Sperling, Reisa A., Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W., Vaillancourt, David E. , Flier, Wiesje M. van der, Vemuri, Prashanthi, Villain, Nicolas , Villemagne, Victor L., Villeneuve, Sylvia , Wang, Wei‐En, Weiner, Michael S. W., Xiao, Cally , Xie, Fang, Yoon, Yeojun, Yun, M R , Rabinovici, Gil D., Wang, Wei‐en , Blazhenets, Ganna , Apostolova, Liana G. , Asken, Breton M. , Bejanin, Alexandre , Bombois, Stéphanie , Bourgeat, Pierrick , Casaletto, Kaitlin B. , Cash, David M. , Chang, Hsin‐I , Chételat, Gaël , Coath, William , Collij, Lyduine , Colmant, Lise , Dickerson, Brad C., Dubois, Bruno , Fortea, Juan , Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Gardner, Raquel C. , Garibotto, Valentina , Guo, Tengfei , Hanseeuw, Bernard , Hansson, Oskar , Harrison, Theresa M. , Ishii, Kazunari , Jagust, William J. , Kramer, Joel H. , Landau, Susan, Landeau, Brigitte , Masters, Colin L. , Mézenge, Florence, Nakamura, Akinori , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Peretti, Débora Elisa , Quenon, Lisa , Salvadó, Gemma , Schott, Jonathan M. , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Seo, Sang Won , Shekari, Mahnaz , Silbert, Lisa C. , Sokolowski, Andrzej, Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Sun, Pan , Toga, Arthur W. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Flier, Wiesje M. van der , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Villemagne, Victor L. , Weiner, Michael W. , Xie, Fang , Young, Christina B. , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Joie, Renaud La

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 23, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz70862_110011 Get It

Abstract Background Ten years after the original publication, the Centiloid framework is now broadly used to harmonize amyloid‐PET quantification, facilitate data sharing and comparison across cohorts, and even assist visual interpretation in clinical settings. We evaluated the global implementation of Centiloids by comparing their distribution and corresponding positivity thresholds across cohorts. Methods We gathered data from publicly available cohorts and reached out to investigators across the world to collect cross‐sectional Centiloids, demographic and clinical information, and visual read data. Gaussian mixture models (GMM, k=2) were fitted to Centiloid values for each cohort and cutoffs were calculated as mean + 2SD of the lower Gaussian. When visual reads were available, we determined Centiloid cutoffs that maximized correspondence with visual reads (Cohen’s kappa). Data was combined across cohorts using random effects meta‐analyses. Results As of January 2025, we included 37 cohorts ( n = 41,678 participants) with heterogeneous pipelines, radiotracers, and clinical and demographic characteristics (Table‐1). The low Gaussian peaks ranged from ‐9 to 10CL; the meta‐analysis identified a common peak at 1CL. The second peaks were more heterogeneous (range=38‐102CL; meta‐analysis outcome=64CL). Across cohorts, the proportion of cognitively unimpaired versus impaired participants impacted the position of both peaks, with better separation in cohorts enriched in impaired individuals (Figure‐1C). The meta‐analysis indicated a GMM‐based cutoff of 19CL (95%CI: 16‐21CL, Figure‐1B); subgroup analyses showed no evidence of significant effect between single versus multicenter settings (17 versus 20CL, p = 0.30), MRI‐based or PET‐only processing (18 versus 19CL, p = 0.88), and no evidence of difference across radiotracers (Flutemetamol: 16CL; PIB: 17CL, Flutafuranol: 18CL, Florbetaben: 19CL, Florbetapir: 20CL, p = 0.78). In a subset of 29,496 participants with visual reads available, binary visual reads corresponded well to Centiloids (common kappa=0.86, Figure‐2A). The visual read‐based cutoff of 24CL (95%CI: 21‐27CL, Figure‐2B) maximized correspondence between visual read and quantification and was slightly higher than the GMM‐based cutoff. All meta‐analysis models showed high non‐random heterogeneity (I 2 >80%) across studies, suggesting non‐random differences in peaks and cutoffs. Conclusions Meta‐analysis‐based cutoffs align well with thresholds from the existing literature. High heterogeneity among studies underscores the need to investigate contributing factors, raising concerns about applying common cutoffs.
Large-scale Integrated Analysis of Genetics and Metabolomic Data Reveals Potential Links Between Lipids and Colorectal Cancer Risk
Shu, Xiao-Ou , Chen, Zhishan, Long, Jirong, Guo, Xingyi, Yang, Yaohua , Qu, Conghui, Ahn, Yoon-Ok, Cai, Qiuyin , Casey, Graham, Gruber, Stephen B. , Huyghe, Jeroen R. , Jee, Sun Ha, Jenkins, Mark A., Jia, Wei-Hua, Jung, Keum Ji, Kamatani, Yoichiro, Kim, Dong-Hyun, Marchand, Loic Le, Newcomb, Polly A., Oh, Jae Hwan, Ose, Jennifer , Pai, Rish K. , Pan, Zhi-Zhong, Ren, Ze-Fang, Shin, Aesun, Sun, Xiaohui, Tangen, Catherine M., Tanikawa, Chizu, Duijnhoven, Fränzel J.B. van , Guelpen, Bethany Van , Woods, Michael O. , Wu, Anna H., Peters, Ulrike , Jee, Sun Ha , Chen, Zhishan , Shu, Xiao-Ou , Kim, Jeongseon , Kweon, Sun-Seog , Matsuda, Koichi , Matsuo, Keitaro , Ose, Jennifer , Oze, Isao , Pai, R K , Pharoah, Paul D P , Playdon, Mary C , Schoen, Robert E , Shin, Min‐Ho , Shu, Xiao-Ou , Ulrich, Cornelia M , van Duijnhoven, Fränzel J B , Van Guelpen, Bethany , Wolk, Alicja , Woods, Michael O , Peters, Ulrike , Zheng, Wei , Gruber, Stephen B , Cai, Qiuyin , Chen, Zhishan, Long, Jirong, Guo, Xingyi, Yang, Yaohua , Qu, Conghui, Ahn, Yoon-Ok, Casey, Graham, Huyghe, Jeroen R , Jenkins, Mark A., Jia, Wei-Hua, Jung, Keum Ji, Kamatani, Yoichiro, Kim, Dong-Hyun, Marchand, Loic Le, Newcomb, Polly A., Oh, Jae Hwan, Pan, Zhi-Zhong, Ren, Ze-Fang, Shin, Aesun, Sun, Xiaohui, Tangen, Catherine M., Tanikawa, Chizu, Wu, Anna H.

Mayo Clinic

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention | March 10, 2022 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1216-1226

10.1158/1055-9965.epi-21-1008 | PMID 35266989 Get It

Abstract Background: The etiology of colorectal cancer is not fully understood. Methods: Using genetic variants and metabolomics data including 217 metabolites from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1,357), we built genetic prediction models for circulating metabolites. Models with prediction R2 > 0.01 (Nmetabolite = 58) were applied to predict levels of metabolites in two large consortia with a combined sample size of approximately 46,300 cases and 59,200 controls of European and approximately 21,700 cases and 47,400 controls of East Asian (EA) descent. Genetically predicted levels of metabolites were evaluated for their associations with colorectal cancer risk in logistic regressions within each racial group, after which the results were combined by meta-analysis. Results: Of the 58 metabolites tested, 24 metabolites were significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk [Benjamini–Hochberg FDR (BH-FDR) < 0.05] in the European population (ORs ranged from 0.91 to 1.06; P values ranged from 0.02 to 6.4 × 10−8). Twenty one of the 24 associations were replicated in the EA population (ORs ranged from 0.26 to 1.69, BH-FDR < 0.05). In addition, the genetically predicted levels of C16:0 cholesteryl ester was significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk in the EA population only (OREA: 1.94, 95% CI, 1.60−2.36, P = 2.6 × 10−11; OREUR: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.99−1.04, P = 0.3). Nineteen of the 25 metabolites were glycerophospholipids and triacylglycerols (TAG). Eighteen associations exhibited significant heterogeneity between the two racial groups (PEUR-EA-Het < 0.005), which were more strongly associated in the EA population. This integrative study suggested a potential role of lipids, especially certain glycerophospholipids and TAGs, in the etiology of colorectal cancer. Conclusions: This study identified potential novel risk biomarkers for colorectal cancer by integrating genetics and circulating metabolomics data. Impact: The identified metabolites could be developed into new tools for risk assessment of colorectal cancer in both European and EA populations.
Association of early repolarization pattern with cardiovascular outcomes in middle‐aged population: A cohort study
Cheng, Yun‐Jiu , Zhao, Xiaoxiao , Pan, Shun‐Ping, Pan, Jia‐Min, Li, Zhu-yu, Cheng, Yun‐Jiu , Zhang, Ming

Mayo Clinic

Clinical Cardiology | October 26, 2020 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1601-1608

10.1002/clc.23488 | PMID 33103793 Get It

AbstractBackgroundLarge cohort studies provide conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic value of early repolarization pattern (ERP) in the general population, complicated by the complex or heterogeneous definitions of ERP applied in different studies.HypothesisWe hypothesized that ERP was associated with increased cardiovascular risk with the definition of ERP recommended by the expert consensus statements.MethodsA total of 13673 middle‐aged subjects from the prospective, population‐based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were included in this analysis. Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for possible confounding factors. ERP was defined as ST‐segment elevation ≥0.1mV at the end of the QRS or J wave on the QRS downstroke in two or more contiguous leads.ResultsCompared with those without ERP, subjects with ERP had a significantly increased risk of developing sudden cardiac death (SCD) (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.08–2.04) and death from coronary heart disease (CHD) (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10–1.92) after a median follow‐up of 20.1 years. ERP was significantly predictive of SCD in females, whites, younger people, and subjects with relatively low cardiovascular risk. ERP with ST‐segment elevation appeared to indicate poor cardiovascular outcomes. ERP was associated with an absolute risk increase of 93.3 additional SCDs per 100 000 person‐years.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that ERP was an independent predictor of SCD and CHD death in the middle‐aged biracial population.
Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in a large consecutive cohort of Chinese colorectal cancer patients: High prevalence and unique molecular features
Wu, Jiang , Cai, Muyan , Li, Shiyong , Bei, Jin‐Xin , Wang, Fang , Ling, Yihong , Rodrı́guez-Bigas, Miguel A. , Dignam, James J. , Mao, Mao , Li, Jibin , Guo, Yun‐Miao , Wu, Xiaoyan , Kong, Lingheng , Tang, Jing‐Hua, Li, Chao‐Feng, Chen, Jie‐Rong, Ye, Ming‐Zhi, Guo, Fengming, Han, Peng , Wan, Desen, Li, Li , Xu, Rui‐Hua , Ding, Pei-Rong , Group, Written on behalf of AME Colorectal Cancer Cooperative, Xu, Rui‐Hua , Jiang, Wu , Xu, Rui-Hua , Hampel, Heather , Frayling, Ian M. , Sinicrope, Frank A. , Kerr, David , Rosell, Rafael , Kong, Ling‐Heng, Tang, Jing-Hua , Wu, Xiaodan , Ou, Qingjian , Ye, Ming-Zhi, Wang, Qiwei , Pan, Zhizhong , Group, Written on behalf of AME Colorectal Cancer Cooperative

Mayo Clinic

International Journal of Cancer | December 6, 2018 | Volume: 144 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 2161-2168

10.1002/ijc.32044 | PMID 30521064 Get It

The prevalence of Lynch syndrome (LS) varies significantly in different populations, suggesting that ethnic features might play an important role. We enrolled 3330 consecutive Chinese patients who had surgical resection for newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Universal screening for LS was implemented, including immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, BRAFV600E mutation test and germline sequencing. Among the 3250 eligible patients, MMR protein deficiency (dMMR) was detected in 330 (10.2%) patients. Ninety‐three patients (2.9%) were diagnosed with LS. Nine (9.7%) patients with LS fulfilled Amsterdam criteria II and 76 (81.7%) met the revised Bethesda guidelines. Only 15 (9.7%) patients with absence of MLH1 on IHC had BRAFV600E mutation. One third (33/99) of the MMR gene mutations have not been reported previously. The age of onset indicates risk of LS in patients with dMMR tumors. For patients older than 65 years, only 2 patients (5.7%) fulfilling revised Bethesda guidelines were diagnosed with LS. Selective sequencing of all cases with dMMR diagnosed at or below age 65 years and only of those dMMR cases older than 65 years who fulfill revised Bethesda guidelines results in 8.2% fewer cases requiring germline testing without missing any LS diagnoses. While the prevalence of LS in Chinese patients is similar to that of Western populations, the spectrum of constitutional mutations and frequency of BRAFV600E mutation is different. Patients older than 65 years who do not meet the revised Bethesda guidelines have a low risk of LS, suggesting germline sequencing might not be necessary in this population.