Objectives Smartphones are increasingly used to collect real-time information on time-varying exposures. We developed and deployed an application (app) to evaluate the feasibility of using smartphones to collect real-time information on intermittent agricultural activities and to characterize agricultural task variability in a longitudinal study of farmers.
Methods We recruited 19 male farmers, aged 50–60 years, to report their farming activities on 24 randomly selected days over 6 months using the Life in a Day app. Eligibility criteria include personal use of an iOS or Android smartphone and >4 h of farming activities at least two days per week. We developed a study-specific database of 350 farming tasks that were provided in the app; 152 were linked to questions that were asked when the activity ended. We report eligibility, study compliance, number of activities, duration of activities by day and task, and responses to the follow-up questions.
Results Of the 143 farmers we reached out to for this study, 16 were not reached by phone or refused to answer eligibility questions, 69 were ineligible (limited smartphone use and/or farming time), 58 met study criteria, and 19 agreed to participate. Refusals were mostly related to uneasiness with the app and/or time commitment (32 of 39). Participation declined gradually over time, with 11 farmers reporting activities through the 24-week study period. We obtained data on 279 days (median 554 min/day; median 18 days per farmer) and 1,321 activities (median 61 min/activity; median 3 activities per day per farmer). The activities were predominantly related to animals (36%), transportation (12%), and equipment (10%). Planting crops and yard work had the longest median durations; short-duration tasks included fueling trucks, collecting/storing eggs, and tree work. Time period-specific variability was observed; for example, crop-related activities were reported for an average of 204 min/day during planting but only 28 min/day during pre-planting and 110 min/day during the growing period. We obtained additional information for 485 (37%) activities; the most frequently asked questions were related to "feed animals" (231 activities) and "operate fuel-powered vehicle (transportation)" (120 activities).
Conclusions Our study demonstrated feasibility and good compliance in collecting longitudinal activity data over 6 months using smartphones in a relatively homogeneous population of farmers. We captured most of the farming day and observed substantial heterogeneity in activities, highlighting the need for individual activity data when characterizing exposure in farmers. We also identified several areas for improvement. In addition, future evaluations should include more diverse populations.
Objectives Farmers may be exposed to glucans (a cell component of molds) through a variety of tasks. The magnitude of exposure depends on each farmer's activities and their duration. We developed a task-specific algorithm to estimate glucan exposure that combines measurements of (1→3)-β-D-glucan with questionnaire responses from farmers in the Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect in Agriculture (BEEA) study.
Methods To develop the algorithm, we first derived task-based geometric means (GMs) of glucan exposure for farming tasks using inhalable personal air sampling data from a prior air monitoring study in a subset of 32 BEEA farmers. Next, these task-specific GMs were multiplied by subject-reported activity frequencies for three time windows (the past 30 days, past 7 days, and past 1 day) to obtain subject-, task-, and time window-specific glucan scores. These were summed together to obtain a total glucan score for each subject and time window. We examined the within- and between-task correlation in glucan scores for different time frames. Additionally, we assessed the algorithm for the 'past 1 day' time window using full-shift concentrations from the 32 farmers who participated in air monitoring the day prior to an interview using multilevel statistical models to compare the measured glucan concentration with algorithm glucan scores.
Results We focused on the five highest exposed tasks: poultry confinement (300 ng/m3), swine confinement (300 ng/m3), clean grain bins (200 ng/m3), grind feed (100 ng/m3), and stored seed or grain (50 ng/m3); the remaining tasks were <50 ng/m3 and had similar concentrations to each other. Overall, 67% of the participants reported at least one of these tasks. The most prevalent task was stored seed or grain (64%). The highest median glucan scores were observed for poultry confinement and swine confinement; these tasks were reported by 2% and 8% of the participants, respectively. The correlation between scores for the same task but different time windows was high for swine confinement and poultry confinement, but low for clean grain bins. Task-specific scores had low correlation with other tasks. Prior day glucan concentration was associated with the total glucan 'past 1 day' score and with swine confinement and clean grain bin task scores.
Conclusions This study provides insight into the variability and key sources of glucan exposure in a US farming population. It also provides a framework for better glucan exposure assessment in epidemiologic studies and is a crucial starting point for evaluating health risks associated with glucans in future epidemiologic evaluations of this population.
Objectives Daily driving of diesel-powered tractors has been linked to increased lung cancer risk in farmers, yet few studies have quantified exposure levels to diesel exhaust during tractor driving or during other farm activities. We expanded an earlier task-based descriptive investigation of factors associated with real-time exposure levels to black carbon (BC, a surrogate of diesel exhaust) in Iowa farmers by increasing the sample size, collecting repeated measurements, and applying statistical models adapted to continuous measurements.
Methods The expanded study added 43 days of sampling, for a total of 63 sample days conducted in 2015 and 2016 on 31 Iowa farmers. Real-time, continuous monitoring (30-s intervals) of personal BC concentrations was performed using a MicroAeth AE51 microaethelometer affixed with a micro-cyclone. A field researcher recorded information on tasks, fuel type, farmer location, and proximity to burning biomass. We evaluated the influence of these variables on log-transformed BC concentrations using a linear mixed-effect model with random effects for farmer and day and a first-order autoregressive structure for within-day correlation.
Results Proximity to diesel-powered equipment was observed for 42.5% of the overall sampling time and on 61 of the 63 sample days. Predicted geometric mean BC concentrations were highest during grain bin work, loading, and harvesting, and lower for soil preparation and planting. A 68% increase in BC concentrations was predicted for close proximity to a diesel-powered vehicle, relative to far proximity, while BC concentrations were 44% higher in diesel vehicles with open cabins compared with closed cabins. Task, farmer location, fuel type, and proximity to burning biomass explained 8% of within-day variance in BC concentrations, 2% of between-day variance, and no between-farmer variance.
Conclusion Our findings showed that farmers worked frequently near diesel equipment and that BC concentrations varied between tasks and by fuel type, farmer location, and proximity to burning biomass. These results could support the development of exposure models applicable to investigations of health effects in farmers associated with exposure to diesel engine exhaust.
Altres ajuts: The authors acknowledge the contribution of the staff of the Cancer Genomics Research Laboratory (CGR) at the National Cancer Institute, NIH, for their help throughout the project. This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Additional acknowledgements for individual participating studies are listed in the Supplemental Materials. ; Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified common pancreatic cancer susceptibility variants at 13 chromosomal loci in individuals of European descent. To identify new susceptibility variants, we performed imputation based on 1000 Genomes (1000G) Project data and association analysis using 5,107 case and 8,845 control subjects from 27 cohort and case-control studies that participated in the PanScan I-III GWAS. This analysis, in combination with a two-staged replication in an additional 6,076 case and 7,555 control subjects from the PANcreatic Disease ReseArch (PANDoRA) and Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control (PanC4) Consortia uncovered 3 new pancreatic cancer risk signals marked by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) rs2816938 at chromosome 1q32.1 (per allele odds ratio (OR) = 1.20, P = 4.88×10 −15), rs10094872 at 8q24.21 (OR = 1.15, P = 3.22×10 −9) and rs35226131 at 5p15.33 (OR = 0.71, P = 1.70×10 −8). These SNPs represent independent risk variants at previously identified pancreatic cancer risk loci on chr1q32.1 (NR5A2), chr8q24.21 (MYC) and chr5p15.33 (CLPTM1L - TERT) as per analyses conditioned on previously reported susceptibility variants. We assessed expression of candidate genes at the three risk loci in histologically normal (n = 10) and tumor (n = 8) derived pancreatic tissue samples and observed a marked reduction of NR5A2 ...
Evidence on the association between vitamin D status and pancreatic cancer risk is inconsistent. This inconsistency may be partially attributable to variation in vitamin D regulating genes. We selected 11 vitamin D-related genes (GC, DHCR7, CYP2R1, VDR, CYP27B1, CYP24A1, CYP27A1, RXRA, CRP2, CASR and CUBN) totaling 213 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and examined associations with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Our study included 3,583 pancreatic cancer cases and 7,053 controls from the genome-wide association studies of pancreatic cancer PanScans-I-III. We used the Adaptive Joint Test and the Adaptive Rank Truncated Product statistic for pathway and gene analyses, and unconditional logistic regression for SNP analyses, adjusting for age, sex, study and population stratification. We examined effect modification by circulating vitamin D concentration (≤50, >50 nmol/L) for the most significant SNPs using a subset of cohort cases (n = 713) and controls (n = 878). The vitamin D metabolic pathway was not associated with pancreatic cancer risk (p = 0.830). Of the individual genes, none were associated with pancreatic cancer risk at a significance level of p<0.05. SNPs near the VDR (rs2239186), LRP2 (rs4668123), CYP24A1 (rs2762932), GC (rs2282679), and CUBN (rs1810205) genes were the top SNPs associated with pancreatic cancer (p-values 0.008-0.037), but none were statistically significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Associations between these SNPs and pancreatic cancer were not modified by circulating concentrations of vitamin D. These findings do not support an association between vitamin D-related genes and pancreatic cancer risk. Future research should explore other pathways through which vitamin D status might be associated with pancreatic cancer risk. ; This project has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Please see the Supplemental Information section for a detailed listing of study-specific funding. Co-authors Xiaoqin Xiong (Information Management Systems, Inc.), Dennis Maeder (Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc.) and Michelle Brotzman (Westat) are employed by commercial enterprises, and received salary from these companies to support this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ; Sí
In 2020, 146,063 deaths due to pancreatic cancer are estimated to occur in Europe and the United States combined. To identify common susceptibility alleles, we performed the largest pancreatic cancer GWAS to date, including 9040 patients and 12,496 controls of European ancestry from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium (PanScan) and the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Here, we find significant evidence of a novel association at rs78417682 (7p12/TNS3, P = 4.35 × 10-8). Replication of 10 promising signals in up to 2737 patients and 4752 controls from the PANcreatic Disease ReseArch (PANDoRA) consortium yields new genome-wide significant loci: rs13303010 at 1p36.33 (NOC2L, P = 8.36 × 10-14), rs2941471 at 8q21.11 (HNF4G, P = 6.60 × 10-10), rs4795218 at 17q12 (HNF1B, P = 1.32 × 10-8), and rs1517037 at 18q21.32 (GRP, P = 3.28 × 10-8). rs78417682 is not statistically significantly associated with pancreatic cancer in PANDoRA. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis in three independent pancreatic data sets provides molecular support of NOC2L as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. ; This work was supported by RO1 CA154823, the Lustgarten Foundation, and federal funds from the NCI, US NIH under contract number HHSN261200800001E. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US Department of Health and Human Services, and mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement by the US government. Geno-typing Services were provided by the CIDR and the NCIs CGR. CIDR is fully funded through a federal contract from the NIH to the Johns Hopkins University, contract number HHSN268201100011I. The IARC/Central Europe study was supported by a grant from the US NCI at the NIH (R03 CA123546-02) and grants from the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic (NR 9029-4/2006, NR9422-3, NR9998-3, and MH CZ- DRO-MMCI 00209805). The work at Johns Hopkins University was supported by the NCI Grants P50CA062924 and R01CA97075. Additional support was provided by, Susan Wojcicki, and Dennis Troper, and the Sol Goldman Pancreas Cancer Research Center. The Mayo Clinic Biospecimen Resource for Pancreas Research study is supported by the Mayo Clinic SPORE in Pancreatic Cancer (P50 CA102701). The Memorial Sloan Ket- tering Cancer Center Pancreatic Tumor Registry is supported by P30CA008748, the Geoffrey Beene Foundation, the Arnold and Arlene Goldstein Family, Foundation, and the Society of MSKCC. The PACIFIC Study was supported by RO1CA102765, Kaiser Permanente, and Group Health Cooperative. The Queensland Pancreatic Cancer Study was supported by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC; Grant number 442302). R.E.N. is supported by a NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (#1060183). The UCSF pancreas study was supported by NIH-NCI grants (R01CA1009767, R01CA109767-S1, and R0CA059706) and the Joan Rombauer Pancreatic Cancer Fund. Collection of cancer incidence data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting pro- gram; the NCIs SEER Program under contract HSN261201000140C awarded to CPIC; and the CDCs National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement #U58DP003862-01 awarded to the California Department of Public Health. The Yale (CT) pancreas cancer study is supported by NCI at the U.S. NIH, grant 5R01CA098870. The cooperation of 30 Connecticut hospitals, including Stamford Hospital, in allowing patient access is gratefully acknowledged. The Connecticut Pancreas Cancer Study was approved by the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health Human Investigation Committee. Certain data used in that study were obtained from the Connecticut Tumor Registry in the Connecticut Department of Public Health. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. Studies included in PAN- DoRA were partly funded by the Czech Science Foundation (No. P301/12/1734), the Internal Grant Agency of the Czech Ministry of Health (IGA NT 13 263); the Baden- Württemberg State Ministry of Research, Science and Arts (Professor H. Brenner), the Heidelberger EPZ-Pancobank (Professor M.W. Büchler and team: Professor T. Hackert, Dr. N. A. Giese, Dr. Ch. Tjaden, E. Soyka, M. Meinhardt; Heidelberger. Stiftung Chir- urgie and BMBF grant 01GS08114), the BMBH (Professor P. Schirmacher; BMBF grant 01EY1101), the " 5 × 1000 " voluntary contribution of the Italian Government, the Italian Ministry of Health (RC1203GA57, RC1303GA53, RC1303GA54, and RC1303GA50), the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (Professor A. Scarpa; AIRC n. 12182), the Italian Ministry of Research (Professor A. Scarpa; FIRB - RBAP10AHJB), the Italian FIMP-Ministry of Health (Professor A. Scarpa; 12 CUP_J33G13000210001), and by the National Institute for Health Research Liverpool Pancreas Biomedical Research Unit, UK. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Frederike Dijk and Professor Oliver Busch (Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Assistance with genotype data quality control was provided by Cecelia Laurie and Cathy Laurie at the University of Washington Genetic Analysis Center. The American Cancer Society (ACS) funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the Cancer Prevention Study II cohort. Cancer incidence data for CLUE were provided by the Maryland Cancer Registry, Center for Cancer Surveillance and Control, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 201 W. Preston Street, Room 400, Baltimore, MD 21201, http://phpa.dhmh.maryland.gov/ cancer , 410-767-4055. We acknowledge the State of Maryland, the Maryland Cigarette Restitution Fund, and the National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the funds that support the collection and availability of the cancer registry data. We thank all the CLUE participants. The Melbourne Col- laborative Cohort Study (MCCS) recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057 and 396414 and by the infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. The NYU study (AZJ and AAA) was funded by NIH R01 CA098661, UM1 CA182934 and center grants P30 CA016087 and P30 ES000260. The PANKRAS II Study in Spain was supported by research grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III-FEDER, Spain: Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (FIS; #PI13/00082 and #PI15/01573) and Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer, Spain (#RD12/ 0036/0050); and European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST Action #BM1204: EU_Pancreas), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (CICYT SAF 2000-0097), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (95/0017), Madrid, Spain; Generalitat de Catalunya(CIRIT—SGR);"Red temática de investigación cooperativa de centros en Cáncer (C03/10),"Red temática de investigación cooperativa de centros en Epidemiología y salud pública(C03/09), and CIBER de Epidemiología (CIBERESP), Madrid. The Physicians 'Health Study was supported by research grants CA-097193, CA-34944, CA-40360, HL- 26490, and HL-34595 from the NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. The Womens Health Study was supported by research grants CA-047988, HL-043851, HL-080467, and HL-099355 from the NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA. Health Professionals Follow-up Study is supported by NIH grant UM1 CA167552 from the NCI, Bethesda, MD, USA. Nurses ' Health Study is supported by NIH grants UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, and R01 CA49449 from the NCI, Bethesda, MD, USA. Additional support from the Hale Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, U01 CA21017 from the NCI, Bethesda, MD, USA, and the United States Department of Defense CA130288, Lustgarten Foundation, Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Noble Effort Fund, Peter R. Leavitt Family Fund, Wexler Family Fund, and Promises for Purple to B.M. Wolpin is acknowledged. The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through contracts HHSN268201600018C, HHSN268201600001C, HHSN268201600002C, HHSN268201600003C, and HHSN268201600004C. The authors thank the WHI investigators and staff for their dedication, and the study participants for making the program possible. A full listing of WHI investigators can be found at http://www.whi.org/researchers/Documents%20%20Write%20a%20Paper/WHI%20Investigator%20Long%20List.pdf . We thank Laurie Burdett, Aurelie Vogt, BelyndaHicks, Amy Hutchinson, Meredith Yeager, and other staff at the NCI's Division ofEpidemiology and Genetics (DECG) CGR for GWAS genotyping. We also thank Bao Tran, Jyoti Shetty, and other members of the NCI Center for Cancer Research (CCR) Sequencing Facility for sequencing RNA from histologically normal pancreatic tissue samples (LTG samples). This study utilized the high-performance computational cap- abilities of the Biowulf Linux cluster at the NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA (http://biowulf.nih.gov). The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) Project was supported by the Common Fund of the Office of the Director of the NIH, and by NCI, NHGRI, NHLBI, NIDA, NIMH, and NINDS. The data used for the analyses described in this manuscript were obtained from the pancreatic tissue data from the GTEx Portal on 05/04/17. The results published here are in part based upon data generated by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) managed by the NCI and NHGRI. Information about TCGA can be found at http://cancergenome.nih.gov/. We acknowledge the clinical contributors that provided PDAC samples and the data producers of RNA-seq and GWAS genotype data from TCGA Research Network. The data set used for the analyses described in this manuscript was obtained by formal permission through the TCGA Data Access Committee (DAC) ; Sí
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
