Suchergebnisse

Wastiary, or Bestiary of Waste, is a creative exercise that occupies letters, numbers, and symbols of Western academic language to compose a list of 35 short entries on the uncomfortable but pressing topic of waste in the contemporary world. The collection is richly illustrated with artwork, photography, collage and mixed media.
The book is a heterodox compendium of 'beasts of waste', playfully re-imagining the medieval treatise on various kinds of animal. It conveys the message that various forms of waste and pollution have achieved a beast-like or untameable quality, at times pungently transferring to considerations of 'the human', or humans treated as waste.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have identified common germline variants nominally associated with breast cancer survival. These associations have not been widely replicated in further studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of previously reported SNPs with breast cancer-specific survival using data from a pooled analysis of eight breast cancer survival genome-wide association studies (GWAS) from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. METHODS: A literature review was conducted of all previously published associations between common germline variants and three survival outcomes: breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival and disease-free survival. All associations that reached the nominal significance level of P value <0.05 were included. Single nucleotide polymorphisms that had been previously reported as nominally associated with at least one survival outcome were evaluated in the pooled analysis of over 37,000 breast cancer cases for association with breast cancer-specific survival. Previous associations were evaluated using a one-sided test based on the reported direction of effect. RESULTS: Fifty-six variants from 45 previous publications were evaluated in the meta-analysis. Fifty-four of these were evaluated in the full set of 37,954 breast cancer cases with 2,900 events and the two additional variants were evaluated in a reduced sample size of 30,000 samples in order to ensure independence from the previously published studies. Five variants reached nominal significance (P <0.05) in the pooled GWAS data compared to 2.8 expected under the null hypothesis. Seven additional variants were associated (P <0.05) with ER-positive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although no variants reached genome-wide significance (P <5 x 10(-8)), these results suggest that there is some evidence of association between candidate common germline variants and breast cancer prognosis. Larger studies from multinational collaborations are necessary to increase the power to detect associations, between common variants and prognosis, at more stringent significance levels. ; Funding This work was supported by the following grants. Higher level funding The COGS project was funded through a European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme grant (agreement number 223175 - HEALTH-F2-2009-223175). The Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) is funded by Cancer Research-UK (C1287/A10118 and C1287/A12014). Meetings of the BCAC have been funded by the European Union COST programme (BM0606). ELAN Program of the University Hospital Erlangen (BBCC). Personal support AP is funded by a MRC studentship. DE is a Principal Research Fellow of Cancer Research UK. JH is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Australia Fellow. MS. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. GT is an NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellow. DL is supported by the FWO and the KULPFV/10/016-SymBioSysII. JL is a UNESCO-L'Oréal International Fellow. RB was a Cancer Institute NSW Fellow. KAP is a National Breast Cancer Foundation Fellow (Australia). Funding of constituent studies These are listed by funding agency, with each grant number in parentheses Academy of Finland (266528); Addenbrookes Charitable Trust; Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore; Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario (PI11/00923, PI08/1120); Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts; Breast Cancer Campaign (2009PR42); Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer program); Cancer Australia; Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia; Cancer Foundation of Western Australia; Cancer Fund of North Savo; Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A12014, A7572, A10124, A11699, A16561, C507/A6306, C10097/A7484,C1275/A11699); Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund; Danish Breast Cancer Group; Danish Medical Research Council; Deutsche Krebshilfe (70-2892-BR I, PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004); Dietmar-Hopp Foundation; Dutch Cancer Society (1997-1505, 2004-3124, NKI2007-3839, 2009-4318, NKI2009-4363); Dutch government (NWO 184.021.007); Dutch National Genomics Initiative; ELAN-Fond of the University Hospital of Erlangen; European Community´s Seventh Framework Programme (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (01KH0402); Finnish Cancer Society; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori; Genome Spain Foundation; German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); Hamburg Cancer Society; Helmholtz Society; Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund; Italian Association for Cancer Research(AIRC); Kuopio University Hospital special Government Funding; National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (209057, 251553 and 504711); National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia); NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre; Nordic Cancer Union; Märit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer; Nordic Cancer Union; Polish Foundation of Science (PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004); Queensland Cancer Fund; Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer; Sigrid Juselius Foundation; Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation; Stichting tegen Kanker (232-2008 and 196-2010); United States National Institutes of Health (BBMRI-NL-CP16, CA69638, CA69417, CA06503, CA116201, CA122340, CA128978, CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839, CA164920, CA98216 , CA098233, CA148065, CA98710, CA98758, and Intramural Research Program of National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute); UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge, Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London, and University of Oxford; University of Eastern Finland strategic funding; Victorian Health Promotion Foundation; Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium; YORKSHIRE CANCER RESEARCH (S295, S299, S305PA). ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMedCentral via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0570-7

Stratification of women according to their risk of breast cancer based on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) could improve screening and prevention strategies. Our aim was to develop PRSs, optimized for prediction of estrogen receptor (ER)-specific disease, from the largest available genome-wide association dataset and to empirically validate the PRSs in prospective studies. The development dataset comprised 94,075 case subjects and 75,017 control subjects of European ancestry from 69 studies, divided into training and validation sets. Samples were genotyped using genome-wide arrays, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected by stepwise regression or lasso penalized regression. The best performing PRSs were validated in an independent test set comprising 11,428 case subjects and 18,323 control subjects from 10 prospective studies and 190,040 women from UK Biobank (3,215 incident breast cancers). For the best PRSs (313 SNPs), the odds ratio for overall disease per 1 standard deviation in ten prospective studies was 1.61 (95%CI: 1.57-1.65) with area under receiver-operator curve (AUC) = 0.630 (95%CI: 0.628-0.651). The lifetime risk of overall breast cancer in the top centile of the PRSs was 32.6%. Compared with women in the middle quintile, those in the highest 1% of risk had 4.37- and 2.78-fold risks, and those in the lowest 1% of risk had 0.16- and 0.27-fold risks, of developing ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively. Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that this PRS was well calibrated and predicts disease risk accurately in the tails of the distribution. This PRS is a powerful and reliable predictor of breast cancer risk that may improve breast cancer prevention programs. ; Novartis ; Eli Lilly and Company ; AstraZeneca ; AbbVie ; Pfizer UK ; Celgene ; Eisai ; Genentech ; Merck Sharp and Dohme ; Roche ; Cancer Research UK ; Government of Canada ; Array BioPharma ; Genome Canada ; National Institutes of Health ; European Commission ; Ministère de l'Économie, de l'Innovation et des Exportations du Québec ; Seventh Framework Programme ; Canadian Institutes of Health Research