| 1. |
- Sampson, Joshua N., et al.
(författare)
-
Analysis of Heritability and Shared Heritability Based on Genome-Wide Association Studies for 13 Cancer Types
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 107:12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Studies of related individuals have consistently demonstrated notable familial aggregation of cancer. We aim to estimate the heritability and genetic correlation attributable to the additive effects of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for cancer at 13 anatomical sites. Methods: Between 2007 and 2014, the US National Cancer Institute has generated data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for 49 492 cancer case patients and 34 131 control patients. We apply novel mixed model methodology (GCTA) to this GWAS data to estimate the heritability of individual cancers, as well as the proportion of heritability attributable to cigarette smoking in smoking-related cancers, and the genetic correlation between pairs of cancers. Results: GWAS heritability was statistically significant at nearly all sites, with the estimates of array-based heritability, h(l)(2), on the liability threshold (LT) scale ranging from 0.05 to 0.38. Estimating the combined heritability of multiple smoking characteristics, we calculate that at least 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14% to 37%) and 7% (95% CI = 4% to 11%) of the heritability for lung and bladder cancer, respectively, can be attributed to genetic determinants of smoking. Most pairs of cancers studied did not show evidence of strong genetic correlation. We found only four pairs of cancers with marginally statistically significant correlations, specifically kidney and testes (rho = 0.73, SE = 0.28), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and pediatric osteosarcoma (rho = 0.53, SE = 0.21), DLBCL and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (rho = 0.51, SE = 0.18), and bladder and lung (rho = 0.35, SE = 0.14). Correlation analysis also indicates that the genetic architecture of lung cancer differs between a smoking population of European ancestry and a nonsmoking Asian population, allowing for the possibility that the genetic etiology for the same disease can vary by population and environmental exposures. Conclusion: Our results provide important insights into the genetic architecture of cancers and suggest new avenues for investigation.
|
|
| 2. |
- van der Poel, Henk, et al.
(författare)
-
Role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers
- 2015
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Urology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0724-4983 .- 1433-8726. ; 33:7, s. 907-916
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Low-risk prostate cancer is found in about half of newly diagnosed men subjected to PSA screening. Methods: To define the role of active surveillance and focal therapy in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers, an invited international panel of practicing physicians in the field of localized prostate cancer discussed the available literature in three consecutive meetings to come to a broad interpretation of the available data. Results: The panel (“new prostate cancer management group,” npm) agreed on the following observations. In most men with a low-volume Gleason 6 tumor, initial conservative management is appropriate. In men with a larger unifocal Gleason score 6 or 3 + 4 lesion, focal therapy, although still considered an investigational approach, appears to be a suitable option in early non-randomized comparison studies. Furthermore, in patients with multifocal small satellite Gleason 6 lesions in the presence of a larger index lesion, focal therapy of the index lesion is an option. For patients with high-grade, large-volume disease, or in young men with evidence of high-volume multifocal low-grade prostate cancer, whole-gland treatment should be considered. Conclusion: Active surveillance is a preferred and safe option for low-risk prostate cancer. Focal therapy is still under investigation, but the available phase II data are promising. Clinical benefits must be shown in prospective trials. With improved imaging, focal therapy may be an option for patients not choosing active surveillance with low-risk disease, progression upon active surveillance or intermediate-risk cancers with a localizable lesion.
|
|
