Associations among prenatal stress, maternal antioxidant intakes in pregnancy, and child temperament at age 30 months.

Prenatal stress and prenatal nutrition each have demonstrable impact on fetal development, with implications for child neurodevelopment and behavior. However, few studies have examined their joint influences despite evidence of potential interactive effects. We examined associations among prenatal stress, prenatal antioxidant intakes, and child temperament in a sociodemographically diverse pregnancy cohort (N=137 mother-child dyads). In mid-pregnancy, mothers completed an assessment of recent negative life events as a measure of prenatal stress and an assessment of prenatal diet. When the children were 30 months of age, mothers completed the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire-Very Short form, which provides scores on child Negative Affectivity, Effortful Control, and Surgency/Extraversion. Linear regressions tested associations between maternal prenatal negative life events and child temperament, and effect modification by maternal prenatal antioxidant intakes (vitamins A, C, and E, magnesium, zinc, selenium, ß-carotene). Analyses revealed that increased maternal prenatal negative life events were associated with higher child Negative Affectivity (ß=0.08, P=0.009) but not with child Effortful Control (ß=-0.03, P=0.39) or Surgency/Extraversion (ß=0.04, P=0.14). Prenatal intakes of zinc and selenium modified this effect: Maternal exposure to prenatal negative life events was associated with higher child Negative Affectivity in the presence of lower intakes of zinc and selenium. Modification effects approached significance for vitamins A and C. The results suggest that the combination of elevated stress exposures and lower antioxidant intakes in pregnancy increases the likelihood of heightened child temperamental negative affectivity. Increased antioxidant intakes during pregnancy may protect against influences of prenatal stress on child temperament.

A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ganitumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the GAMMA trial.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2 : 2 : 1 to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus placebo, ganitumab 12 mg/kg, or ganitumab 20 mg/kg (days 1 and 15 of each cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and efficacy by levels of circulating biomarkers. RESULTS: Overall, 322 patients were randomly assigned to placebo, 318 to ganitumab 12 mg/kg, and 160 to ganitumab 20 mg/kg. The study was stopped based on results from a preplanned futility analysis; the final results are reported. Median OS was 7.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-8.2] in the placebo arm, 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.5) in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = 0.494], and 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-8.5) in the ganitumab 20-mg/kg arm (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = 0.397). Median PFS was 3.7, 3.6 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20; P = 0.520), and 3.7 months (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22; P = 0.403), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed with ganitumab plus gemcitabine. The circulating biomarkers assessed [insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-binding protein-2, and -3] were not associated with a treatment effect on OS or PFS by ganitumab. CONCLUSION: Ganitumab combined with gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS, compared with gemcitabine alone in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01231347.

Analysis of somatic molecular changes, clinicopathological features, family history, and germline mutations in colorectal cancer families: evidence for efficient diagnosis of HNPCC and for the existence of distinct groups of non-HNPCC families.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse somatic molecular changes, clinicopathological features, family history, and germline mutations in families with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Molecular changes (K-ras and beta-catenin mutations, chromosome 18q allele loss (LOH), APC LOH, microsatellite instability (MSI), and expression of beta-catenin and p53) were examined in four series of CRC patients with proven or probable hereditary disease: hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC); MYH associated polyposis (MAP); multiple (>5) colorectal adenomas without familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP); and other families/cases referred to family cancer clinics (FCC series). HNPCC was diagnosed using a combination of germline mutation screening and tumour studies. A series of unselected CRC patients was also studied. RESULTS: There was overlap between genetic pathways followed by each type of CRC, but significant differences included: increased frequency of K-ras mutation and reduced frequency of APC LOH in cancers from MAP, but not from multiple adenoma patients; reduced frequency of LOH in HNPCC CRCs; and increased MSI in CRCs from HNPCC, but not from FCC or multiple adenoma patients. HNPCC was apparently detected efficiently by combined germline and somatic analysis. Cancers from the FCC, unselected, and multiple adenoma series shared similar molecular characteristics. In the FCC and multiple adenoma series, hierarchical cluster analysis using the molecular features of the cancers consistently identified two distinct groups, distinguished by presence or absence of K-ras mutation. CONCLUSIONS: While K-ras mutation status is known to differentiate hereditary bowel cancer syndromes such as MAP and FAP, it may also distinguish groups of non-HNPCC, FCC patients whose disease has different, as yet unknown, genetic origins.

Refining the Amsterdam Criteria and Bethesda Guidelines: testing algorithms for the prediction of mismatch repair mutation status in the familial cancer clinic.

PURPOSE: Hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) is a Mendelian dominant syndrome of bowel, endometrial, and other cancers and results from germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. HNPCC is now best diagnosed on molecular grounds using MMR mutation screening, aided by microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemistry in tumors. Selection of families for molecular investigation of HNPCC is usually based on suboptimal methods (Amsterdam Criteria or Bethesda Guidelines), but these can be improved using additional clinical data (mean ages of affected persons and presence of endometrial cancer) in a quantitative model. METHODS: We have verified the performance of the Wijnen model and have shown that it remains valid when HNPCC is diagnosed using mutation screening, MSI, and immunohistochemistry. We have also set up and verified our own models (Amsterdam-plus and Alternative), which perform at least as well as the Wijnen model. RESULTS: The Amsterdam-plus model improves on the Amsterdam Criteria by using five extra variables (numbers of colorectal and endometrial cancers in the family, number of patients with five or more adenomas, number with more than one primary cancer of the colorectum or endometrium, and mean age of presentation) and performs better than the Wijnen model. The Alternative model avoids the need to evaluate the Amsterdam Criteria and performs nearly as well as the other models. CONCLUSION: We believe that a quantitative model, such as the Amsterdam-plus model, should be the first choice for selecting families or patients for evaluation of HNPCC using molecular tests. We present an algorithm for this process.