Displaying all 10 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Svevo-Cianci KA, Hart SN, Rubinson C
    Child Abuse Negl, 2010 Jan;34(1):45-56.
    PMID: 20060588 DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.010
    (1) To identify which United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) recommended child protection (CP) measures, such as policy, reporting systems, and services for child abuse and neglect (CAN) victims, individually or in combination, were most important in establishing a basic level of child protection in 42 countries; and (2) to assess whether these measures were necessary or sufficient to achieve basic child protection in developing and industrialized countries.
  2. Liu J, Lončar I, Collée JM, Bolla MK, Dennis J, Michailidou K, et al.
    Sci Rep, 2016 Nov 15;6:36874.
    PMID: 27845421 DOI: 10.1038/srep36874
    NBS1, also known as NBN, plays an important role in maintaining genomic stability. Interestingly, rs2735383 G > C, located in a microRNA binding site in the 3'-untranslated region (UTR) of NBS1, was shown to be associated with increased susceptibility to lung and colorectal cancer. However, the relation between rs2735383 and susceptibility to breast cancer is not yet clear. Therefore, we genotyped rs2735383 in 1,170 familial non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer cases and 1,077 controls using PCR-based restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP-PCR) analysis, but found no association between rs2735383CC and breast cancer risk (OR = 1.214, 95% CI = 0.936-1.574, P = 0.144). Because we could not exclude a small effect size due to a limited sample size, we further analyzed imputed rs2735383 genotypes (r2 > 0.999) of 47,640 breast cancer cases and 46,656 controls from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). However, rs2735383CC was not associated with overall breast cancer risk in European (OR = 1.014, 95% CI = 0.969-1.060, P = 0.556) nor in Asian women (OR = 0.998, 95% CI = 0.905-1.100, P = 0.961). Subgroup analyses by age, age at menarche, age at menopause, menopausal status, number of pregnancies, breast feeding, family history and receptor status also did not reveal a significant association. This study therefore does not support the involvement of the genotype at NBS1 rs2735383 in breast cancer susceptibility.
  3. Easton DF, Lesueur F, Decker B, Michailidou K, Li J, Allen J, et al.
    J Med Genet, 2016 May;53(5):298-309.
    PMID: 26921362 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103529
    BACKGROUND: BRCA1 interacting protein C-terminal helicase 1 (BRIP1) is one of the Fanconi Anaemia Complementation (FANC) group family of DNA repair proteins. Biallelic mutations in BRIP1 are responsible for FANC group J, and previous studies have also suggested that rare protein truncating variants in BRIP1 are associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. These studies have led to inclusion of BRIP1 on targeted sequencing panels for breast cancer risk prediction.

    METHODS: We evaluated a truncating variant, p.Arg798Ter (rs137852986), and 10 missense variants of BRIP1, in 48 144 cases and 43 607 controls of European origin, drawn from 41 studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). Additionally, we sequenced the coding regions of BRIP1 in 13 213 cases and 5242 controls from the UK, 1313 cases and 1123 controls from three population-based studies as part of the Breast Cancer Family Registry, and 1853 familial cases and 2001 controls from Australia.

    RESULTS: The rare truncating allele of rs137852986 was observed in 23 cases and 18 controls in Europeans in BCAC (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.03, p=0.79). Truncating variants were found in the sequencing studies in 34 cases (0.21%) and 19 controls (0.23%) (combined OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.70, p=0.75).

    CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that truncating variants in BRIP1, and in particular p.Arg798Ter, are not associated with a substantial increase in breast cancer risk. Such observations have important implications for the reporting of results from breast cancer screening panels.

  4. Liu J, Prager-van der Smissen WJC, Collée JM, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Michailidou K, et al.
    Sci Rep, 2020 Jun 16;10(1):9688.
    PMID: 32546843 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65665-y
    In breast cancer, high levels of homeobox protein Hox-B13 (HOXB13) have been associated with disease progression of ER-positive breast cancer patients and resistance to tamoxifen treatment. Since HOXB13 p.G84E is a prostate cancer risk allele, we evaluated the association between HOXB13 germline mutations and breast cancer risk in a previous study consisting of 3,270 familial non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer cases and 2,327 controls from the Netherlands. Although both recurrent HOXB13 mutations p.G84E and p.R217C were not associated with breast cancer risk, the risk estimation for p.R217C was not very precise. To provide more conclusive evidence regarding the role of HOXB13 in breast cancer susceptibility, we here evaluated the association between HOXB13 mutations and increased breast cancer risk within 81 studies of the international Breast Cancer Association Consortium containing 68,521 invasive breast cancer patients and 54,865 controls. Both HOXB13 p.G84E and p.R217C did not associate with the development of breast cancer in European women, neither in the overall analysis (OR = 1.035, 95% CI = 0.859-1.246, P = 0.718 and OR = 0.798, 95% CI = 0.482-1.322, P = 0.381 respectively), nor in specific high-risk subgroups or breast cancer subtypes. Thus, although involved in breast cancer progression, HOXB13 is not a material breast cancer susceptibility gene.
  5. Page DB, Broeckx G, Jahangir CA, Verbandt S, Gupta RR, Thagaard J, et al.
    J Pathol, 2023 Aug;260(5):514-532.
    PMID: 37608771 DOI: 10.1002/path.6165
    Modern histologic imaging platforms coupled with machine learning methods have provided new opportunities to map the spatial distribution of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. However, there exists no standardized method for describing or analyzing spatial immune cell data, and most reported spatial analyses are rudimentary. In this review, we provide an overview of two approaches for reporting and analyzing spatial data (raster versus vector-based). We then provide a compendium of spatial immune cell metrics that have been reported in the literature, summarizing prognostic associations in the context of a variety of cancers. We conclude by discussing two well-described clinical biomarkers, the breast cancer stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes score and the colon cancer Immunoscore, and describe investigative opportunities to improve clinical utility of these spatial biomarkers. © 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
  6. Thagaard J, Broeckx G, Page DB, Jahangir CA, Verbandt S, Kos Z, et al.
    J Pathol, 2023 Aug;260(5):498-513.
    PMID: 37608772 DOI: 10.1002/path.6155
    The clinical significance of the tumor-immune interaction in breast cancer is now established, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have emerged as predictive and prognostic biomarkers for patients with triple-negative (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2-negative) breast cancer and HER2-positive breast cancer. How computational assessments of TILs might complement manual TIL assessment in trial and daily practices is currently debated. Recent efforts to use machine learning (ML) to automatically evaluate TILs have shown promising results. We review state-of-the-art approaches and identify pitfalls and challenges of automated TIL evaluation by studying the root cause of ML discordances in comparison to manual TIL quantification. We categorize our findings into four main topics: (1) technical slide issues, (2) ML and image analysis aspects, (3) data challenges, and (4) validation issues. The main reason for discordant assessments is the inclusion of false-positive areas or cells identified by performance on certain tissue patterns or design choices in the computational implementation. To aid the adoption of ML for TIL assessment, we provide an in-depth discussion of ML and image analysis, including validation issues that need to be considered before reliable computational reporting of TILs can be incorporated into the trial and routine clinical management of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. © 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
  7. Jahangir CA, Page DB, Broeckx G, Gonzalez CA, Burke C, Murphy C, et al.
    J Pathol, 2024 Mar;262(3):271-288.
    PMID: 38230434 DOI: 10.1002/path.6238
    Recent advances in the field of immuno-oncology have brought transformative changes in the management of cancer patients. The immune profile of tumours has been found to have key value in predicting disease prognosis and treatment response in various cancers. Multiplex immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence have emerged as potent tools for the simultaneous detection of multiple protein biomarkers in a single tissue section, thereby expanding opportunities for molecular and immune profiling while preserving tissue samples. By establishing the phenotype of individual tumour cells when distributed within a mixed cell population, the identification of clinically relevant biomarkers with high-throughput multiplex immunophenotyping of tumour samples has great potential to guide appropriate treatment choices. Moreover, the emergence of novel multi-marker imaging approaches can now provide unprecedented insights into the tumour microenvironment, including the potential interplay between various cell types. However, there are significant challenges to widespread integration of these technologies in daily research and clinical practice. This review addresses the challenges and potential solutions within a structured framework of action from a regulatory and clinical trial perspective. New developments within the field of immunophenotyping using multiplexed tissue imaging platforms and associated digital pathology are also described, with a specific focus on translational implications across different subtypes of cancer. © 2024 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
  8. Morra A, Jung AY, Behrens S, Keeman R, Ahearn TU, Anton-Culver H, et al.
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2021 Apr;30(4):623-642.
    PMID: 33500318 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0924
    BACKGROUND: It is not known whether modifiable lifestyle factors that predict survival after invasive breast cancer differ by subtype.

    METHODS: We analyzed data for 121,435 women diagnosed with breast cancer from 67 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium with 16,890 deaths (8,554 breast cancer specific) over 10 years. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between risk factors and 10-year all-cause mortality and breast cancer-specific mortality overall, by estrogen receptor (ER) status, and by intrinsic-like subtype.

    RESULTS: There was no evidence of heterogeneous associations between risk factors and mortality by subtype (P adj > 0.30). The strongest associations were between all-cause mortality and BMI ≥30 versus 18.5-25 kg/m2 [HR (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19 (1.06-1.34)]; current versus never smoking [1.37 (1.27-1.47)], high versus low physical activity [0.43 (0.21-0.86)], age ≥30 years versus <20 years at first pregnancy [0.79 (0.72-0.86)]; >0-<5 years versus ≥10 years since last full-term birth [1.31 (1.11-1.55)]; ever versus never use of oral contraceptives [0.91 (0.87-0.96)]; ever versus never use of menopausal hormone therapy, including current estrogen-progestin therapy [0.61 (0.54-0.69)]. Similar associations with breast cancer mortality were weaker; for example, 1.11 (1.02-1.21) for current versus never smoking.

    CONCLUSIONS: We confirm associations between modifiable lifestyle factors and 10-year all-cause mortality. There was no strong evidence that associations differed by ER status or intrinsic-like subtype.

    IMPACT: Given the large dataset and lack of evidence that associations between modifiable risk factors and 10-year mortality differed by subtype, these associations could be cautiously used in prognostication models to inform patient-centered care.

  9. Milne RL, Kuchenbaecker KB, Michailidou K, Beesley J, Kar S, Lindström S, et al.
    Nat Genet, 2017 Dec;49(12):1767-1778.
    PMID: 29058716 DOI: 10.1038/ng.3785
    Most common breast cancer susceptibility variants have been identified through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of predominantly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease. We conducted a GWAS using 21,468 ER-negative cases and 100,594 controls combined with 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer), all of European origin. We identified independent associations at P < 5 × 10-8 with ten variants at nine new loci. At P < 0.05, we replicated associations with 10 of 11 variants previously reported in ER-negative disease or BRCA1 mutation carrier GWAS and observed consistent associations with ER-negative disease for 105 susceptibility variants identified by other studies. These 125 variants explain approximately 16% of the familial risk of this breast cancer subtype. There was high genetic correlation (0.72) between risk of ER-negative breast cancer and breast cancer risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers. These findings may lead to improved risk prediction and inform further fine-mapping and functional work to better understand the biological basis of ER-negative breast cancer.
  10. Michailidou K, Lindström S, Dennis J, Beesley J, Hui S, Kar S, et al.
    Nature, 2017 Nov 02;551(7678):92-94.
    PMID: 29059683 DOI: 10.1038/nature24284
    Breast cancer risk is influenced by rare coding variants in susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1, and many common, mostly non-coding variants. However, much of the genetic contribution to breast cancer risk remains unknown. Here we report the results of a genome-wide association study of breast cancer in 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European ancestry and 14,068 cases and 13,104 controls of East Asian ancestry. We identified 65 new loci that are associated with overall breast cancer risk at P 
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links