| 1. |
- Antoniou, A. C., et al.
(författare)
-
Common breast cancer susceptibility alleles and the risk of breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers : Implications for risk prediction
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Cancer Research. - : American Association for Cancer Research. - 0008-5472 .- 1538-7445. ; 70:23, s. 9742-9754
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The known breast cancer susceptibility polymorphisms in FGFR2, TNRC9/TOX3, MAP3K1, LSP1, and 2q35 confer increased risks of breast cancer for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. We evaluated the associations of 3 additional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs4973768 in SLC4A7/NEK10, rs6504950 in STXBP4/COX11, and rs10941679 at 5p12, and reanalyzed the previous associations using additional carriers in a sample of 12,525 BRCA1 and 7,409 BRCA2 carriers. Additionally, we investigated potential interactions between SNPs and assessed the implications for risk prediction. The minor alleles of rs4973768 and rs10941679 were associated with increased breast cancer risk for BRCA2 carriers (per-allele HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03-1.18, P = 0.006 and HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.19, P = 0.03, respectively). Neither SNP was associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 carriers, and rs6504950 was not associated with breast cancer for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. Of the 9 polymorphisms investigated, 7 were associated with breast cancer for BRCA2 carriers (FGFR2, TOX3, MAP3K1, LSP1, 2q35, SLC4A7, 5p12, P = 7 × 10-11 - 0.03), but only TOX3 and 2q35 were associated with the risk for BRCA1 carriers (P = 0.0049, 0.03, respectively). All risk-associated polymorphisms appear to interact multiplicatively on breast cancer risk for mutation carriers. Based on the joint genotype distribution of the 7 risk-associated SNPs in BRCA2 mutation carriers, the 5% of BRCA2 carriers at highest risk (i.e., between 95th and 100th percentiles) were predicted to have a probability between 80% and 96% of developing breast cancer by age 80, compared with 42% to 50% for the 5% of carriers at lowest risk. Our findings indicated that these risk differences might be sufficient to influence the clinical management of mutation carriers.
|
|
| 2. |
- Underwood, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of a Novel Multivariate Method of Defining HIV-Associated Cognitive Impairment
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Open forum infectious diseases. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2328-8957. ; 6:6, s. ofz198-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe optimum method of defining cognitive impairment in virally suppressed people living with HIV is unknown. We evaluated the relationships between cognitive impairment, including using a novel multivariate method (NMM), patient– reported outcome measures (PROMs), and neuroimaging markers of brain structure across 3 cohorts.MethodsDifferences in the prevalence of cognitive impairment, PROMs, and neuroimaging data from the COBRA, CHARTER, and POPPY cohorts (total n = 908) were determined between HIV-positive participants with and without cognitive impairment defined using the HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), global deficit score (GDS), and NMM criteria.ResultsThe prevalence of cognitive impairment varied by up to 27% between methods used to define impairment (eg, 48% for HAND vs 21% for NMM in the CHARTER study). Associations between objective cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive complaints generally were weak. Physical and mental health summary scores (SF-36) were lowest for NMM-defined impairment (P < .05).There were no differences in brain volumes or cortical thickness between participants with and without cognitive impairment defined using the HAND and GDS measures. In contrast, those identified with cognitive impairment by the NMM had reduced mean cortical thickness in both hemispheres (P < .05), as well as smaller brain volumes (P < .01). The associations with measures of white matter microstructure and brain-predicted age generally were weaker.ConclusionDifferent methods of defining cognitive impairment identify different people with varying symptomatology and measures of brain injury. Overall, NMM-defined impairment was associated with most neuroimaging abnormalities and poorer self-reported health status. This may be due to the statistical advantage of using a multivariate approach.
|
|
