Genetic polymorphism in UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B7 and colorectal cancer risk.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the Western world. CRC is strongly associated with lifestyle factors. Susceptibility to CRC may be partly due to deficient detoxification capacity in the gastrointestinal tract. Genetic polymorphisms in detoxification enzymes result in variations in detoxification activities, which might influence the levels of carcinogens in the gastrointestinal tract, influencing the risk for CRC. To determine whether a genetic polymorphism in the detoxification enzyme UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B7 (UGT2B7) predisposes to CRC, 411 Caucasian patients with sporadic CRC and 600 Caucasian controls recruited from the same geographic area were genotyped for the functional UGT2B7 H268Y polymorphism. DNA was isolated and tested by a dual-color real-time polymerase chain reaction assay. Overall, no differences in genotype distributions between patients with CRC and controls were observed. When analyzed with respect to tumor location, a shift from the UGT2B7*I *2 into the UGT2B7*2*2 genotype was seen in patients with proximal CRC (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11-2.89). In the male patient subpopulation an even stronger association was observed (*1*1 + *1*2 vs. *2*2: OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.11-4.04; *1*2 vs. *2*2: OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.10-4.37). No associations with respect to tumor stage were seen. In conclusion, the frequency of the UGT2B7*2*2 genotype is higher in CRC patients with proximal location of the tumor, especially in males, which suggests that this genotype is associated with an increased risk for proximal CRC.

The influence of simultaneous integrated boost, hypofractionation and oncoplastic surgery on cosmetic outcome and PROMs after breast conserving therapy.

INTRODUCTION: We retrospectively investigated the possible influence of a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB), hypofractionation and oncoplastic surgery on cosmetic outcome in 125 patients with stage I-II breast cancer treated with breast conserving therapy (BCT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The boost was given sequentially (55%) or by SIB (45%); fractionation was conventional (83%) or hypofractionated (17%); the surgical technique was a conventional lumpectomy (74%) or an oncoplastic technique (26%). We compared cosmetic results subjectively using a questionnaire independently completed by the patient and by the physician and objectively with the BCCT.core software. Independent-samples T-tests were used to compare outcome in different groups. Patients also completed the EORTC QLQ C30 and BR23. RESULTS: Univariate analyses indicated no significant differences of the cosmetic results (P ≤ 0.05) for the type of boost or fractionation. However, the conventional lumpectomy group scored significantly better than the oncoplastic group in the BCCT.core evaluation, without a significant difference in the subjective cosmetic evaluation. Quality of life outcome was in favour of SIB, hypofractionation and conventional surgery. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that the current RT techniques seem to be safe for cosmetic outcome and quality of life. Further investigation is needed to verify the possible negative influence of oncoplastic surgery on the cosmetic outcome and the quality of life as this technique is especially indicated for patients with an unfavourable tumour/breast volume ratio.