PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Louise Strong

Publications and source records attributed to Louise Strong.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Association between clinical characteristics and risk-reduction interventions in women who underwent BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing: a single-institution study.

BACKGROUND: Women who are at increased risk for breast and ovarian cancers, especially BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, face a myriad of risk-reduction options, including increased surveillance, chemoprevention, prophylactic oophorectomy, and prophylactic mastectomy. However, little is known about which clinical, demographic, or cancer-related factors are associated with risk-reduction interventions. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of records for 554 women who had undergone testing at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center between 2000 and 2006 for deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations. Data were collected on the risk-reduction interventions these women adopted after they underwent genetic testing. These data were tested for associations with demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among the 554 women who underwent genetic testing for BRCA mutation, 78 were found to have a deleterious mutation in the BRCA1 gene, and 54 had a mutation in the BRCA 2 gene. Of the 554 women, 85 underwent prophylactic mastectomy, 30 prophylactic oophorectomy, and 52 both surgeries; 387 women opted for surveillance. Women who had BRCA mutations, a history of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), or previous breast biopsies were more likely to have prophylactic surgery. Women with a family history of ovarian cancer were more likely to undergo prophylactic oophorectomy. Women with a personal history of ovarian cancer or advanced breast cancer were more likely to undergo surveillance only. Women with breast cancer who had had a total mastectomy as part of their prior breast cancer treatment underwent prophylactic mastectomy more frequently than women who either had breast-conserving surgery or no history of breast cancer. In multivariate analysis, only positive BRCA mutation carrier status was associated with having had prophylactic surgery. In addition, breast cancer history was significantly associated with prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Women who were BRCA carriers, women who had a history of breast cancer, DCIS, or breast biopsy, or had a family history of ovarian cancer were more likely to have undergone surgery for cancer risk reduction. Women with ovarian cancer or advanced breast cancer were more likely to have undergone surveillance.

BRCA1 Protein↗
PubMed2006

Cancer survivorship--genetic susceptibility and second primary cancers: research strategies and recommendations.

Cancer survivors constitute 3.5% of the United States population, but second primary malignancies among this high-risk group now account for 16% of all cancer incidence. Although few data currently exist regarding the molecular mechanisms for second primary cancers and other late outcomes after cancer treatment, the careful measurement and documentation of potentially carcinogenic treatments (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) provide a unique platform for in vivo research on gene-environment interactions in human carcinogenesis. We review research priorities identified during a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored workshop entitled "Cancer Survivorship--Genetic Susceptibility and Second Primary Cancers." These priorities include 1) development of a national research infrastructure for studies of cancer survivorship; 2) creation of a coordinated system for biospecimen collection; 3) development of new technology, bioinformatics, and biomarkers; 4) design of new epidemiologic methods; and 5) development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Many of the infrastructure resources and design strategies that would facilitate research in this area also provide a foundation for the study of other important nonneoplastic late effects of treatment and psychosocial concerns among cancer survivors. These research areas warrant high priority to promote NCI's goal of eliminating pain and suffering related to cancer.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2006

Analysis of co-aggregation of cancer based on registry data.

OBJECTIVE: An exploratory analysis of co-aggregation of cancers using registry-based data. METHODS: We utilized sibships from over 18,000 families who had been recruited to the NCI-sponsored multi-institutional Cancer Genetics Network. The analysis assesses co-aggregation at the individual and family level and adjusts for ascertainment. RESULTS: We found statistically significant familial co-aggregation of lung cancer with pancreatic (adjusted p < 0.001), prostate (adjusted p < 0.003), and colorectal cancers (adjusted p = 0.004). In addition, we found significant familial co-aggregation of pancreatic and colorectal cancers (adjusted p = 0.018), and co-aggregation of hematopoietic and (non-ovarian) gynecologic cancers (adjusted p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This analysis identified familial aggregation of cancers for which a genetic component has yet to be established.

Female↗
PubMed2004

A comparative analysis of data generated using two different target preparation methods for hybridization to high-density oligonucleotide microarrays.

BACKGROUND: To generate specific transcript profiles, one must isolate homogenous cell populations using techniques that often yield small amounts of RNA, requiring researchers to employ RNA amplification methods. The data generated by using these methods must be extensively evaluated to determine any technique dependent distortion of the expression profiles. RESULTS: High-density oligonucleotide microarrays were used to perform experiments for comparing data generated by using two protocols, an in vitro transcription (IVT) protocol that requires 5 microg of total RNA and a double in vitro transcription (dIVT) protocol that requires 200 ng of total RNA for target preparation from RNA samples extracted from a normal and a cancer cell line. In both cell lines, about 10% more genes were detected with IVT than with dIVT. Genes were filtered to exclude those that were undetected on all arrays. Hierarchical clustering using the 9,482 genes that passed the filter showed that the variation attributable to biological differences between samples was greater than that introduced by differences in the protocols. We analyzed the behavior of these genes separately for each protocol by using a statistical model to estimate the posterior probability of various levels of fold change. At each level, more differentially expressed genes were detected with IVT than with dIVT. When we checked for genes that had a posterior probability greater than 99% of fold change greater than 2, in data generated by IVT but not dIVT, more than 60% of these genes had posterior probabilities greater than 90% in data generated by dIVT. Both protocols identified the same functional gene categories to be differentially expressed. Differential expression of selected genes was confirmed using quantitative real-time PCR. CONCLUSION: Using nanogram quantities on total RNA, the usage of dIVT protocol identified differentially expressed genes and functional categories consistent with those detected by the IVT protocol. There was a loss in sensitivity of about 10% when detecting differentially expressed genes using the dIVT protocol. However, the lower amount of RNA required for this protocol, as compared to the IVT protocol, renders this methodology a highly desirable one for biological systems where sample amounts are limiting.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

The Cancer Genetics Network: recruitment results and pilot studies.

OBJECTIVE: The National Cancer Institute established the Cancer Genetics Network (CGN) to support collaborative investigations into the genetic basis of cancer susceptibility, explore mechanisms to integrate this new knowledge into medical practice, and identify ways of addressing the associated psychosocial, ethical, legal, and public health issues. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The CGN has developed the complex infrastructure required to support the projects, including the establishment of guidelines and policies, uniform methods, standard questionnaires to be used by all of the centers, and a standard format for submission of data to the Informatics Center. Cancer patients and their family members have been invited to enroll and be included in a pool of potential study participants. The Information Technology Group is responsible for support of the design, implementation, and maintenance of the multicenter Network-wide research protocols. RESULTS: As of January 2004, the CGN contained data on 23,995 probands (participants) and 425,798 family members. As a resource for cancer genetic studies, the CGN has a large number of probands and first-degree relatives with and without cancer and with multiple ethnicities. Different study designs can be used including case-control, case-case, and family studies. CONCLUSIONS: The unique resources of the CGN are available for studies on cancer genetic susceptibility, translational research, and behavioral research. The CGN is now at a point where approved collaborators may have access to enrolled patients and their families for special studies, as well as to the clinical, environmental and family cancer history data banked in the Informatics Center.

Female↗