Genetic and Epigenetic Characterization of Colorectal and Endometrial Cancer

Colorectal cancer is one of the three most common cancers today, for both men and women. Approximately 90% of the cases are sporadic while the remaining 10% is hereditary. Among this 10% is hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), an autosomal dominant disease, accounting for up to 13% of these cases. HNPCC is associated with germline mutations in four mismatch repair (MMR) genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, and is characterized by a familial accumulation of endometrial, gastric, urological, and ovarian tumors, in addition to colorectal cancer. An important etiological characteristic of HNPCC is the presence of microsatellite instability (MSI), caused by mutations of the MMR genes. Approximately 15% of sporadic cases share the MSI+ trait. Colon cancer is believed to be a consequence of an accumulation of mutations in tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes, eventually resulting in tumor development. This phenomena is accelerated in HNPCC due the presence of an inherited mutation in the MMR genes, accounting for one of the two hits proposed to be needed by Knudson (1971) in order for the manifestation of the MSI phenotype. MMR alterations alone, however, do not occur in the majority of sporadic colon cancers, prompting searches for other mechanisms. One such mechanism found to play a role in colon cancer development was DNA methylation, which is known to play a role in MLH1 inactivation. Our objective was clarification of mechanisms associated with tumor development in both HNPCC and sporadic colorectal cancer in relation to tumorigenic mechanisms. Of particular interest were underlying mechanisms of MSI in sporadic colorectal cancers, with attention to DNA methylation changes and their correlation to MSI. Of additional interest were the genetic and epigenetic events leading to the HNPCC tumor spectrum, chiefly colon and endometrial cancers, in regards to what extent the somatic changes in target tissue explained this phenomenon. We made a number of important findings pertaining to these questions. First, MSI tumor development differs epigenetically from stable tumor development, possibly underlying developmental pathway differences. Additionally, while epigenetic modification, principally DNA methylation, is a major mechanism in sporadic MSI colorectal cancer MLH1 inactivation it does not play a significant role in HNPCC tumors with germline MLH1 mutations. This is possibly an explanation for tumorigenic pathways and clinicopathological characteristic differences between sporadic and hereditary MSI colorectal cancers. Finally, despite indistinguishable genetic predisposition for endometrial and colorectal cancers, instability profiles highlighting organ-specific differences, may be important HNPCC tumor spectrum determinants.

Psychosocial processes of health behaviour change in a lifestyle intervention : Influences of gender, socioeconomic status and personality

Background: The onset of many chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes can be delayed or prevented by changes in diet, physical activity and obesity. Known predictors of successful behaviour change include psychosocial factors such as selfefficacy, action and coping planning, and social support. However, gender and socioeconomic differences in these psychosocial mechanisms underlying health behaviour change have not been examined, despite well-documented sociodemographic differences in lifestyle-related mortality and morbidity. Additionally, although stable personality traits (such as dispositional optimism or pessimism and gender-role orientation: agency and communion) are related to health and health behaviour, to date they have rarely been studied in the context of health behaviour interventions. These personality traits might contribute to health behaviour change independently of the more modifiable domain-specific psychosocial factors, or indirectly through them, or moderated by them. The aims were to examine in an intervention setting: (1) whether changes (during the three-month intervention) in psychological determinants (self-efficacy beliefs, action planning and coping planning) predict changes in exercise and diet behaviours over three months and 12 months, (2) the universality assumption of behaviour change theories, i.e. whether preintervention levels and changes in psychosocial determinants are similar among genders and socioeconomic groups, and whether they predict changes in behaviour in a similar way in these groups, (3) whether the personality traits optimism, pessimism, agency and communion predict changes in abdominal obesity, and the nature of their interplay with modifiable and domain-specific psychosocial factors (self-efficacy and social support). Methods: Finnish men and women (N = 385) aged 50 65 years who were at an increased risk for type 2 diabetes were recruited from health care centres to participate in the GOod Ageing in Lahti Region (GOAL) Lifestyle Implementation Trial. The programme aimed to improve participants lifestyle (physical activity, eating) and decrease their overweight. The measurements of self-efficacy, planning, social support and dispositional optimism/pessimism were conducted pre-intervention at baseline (T1) and after the intensive phase of the intervention at three months (T2), and the measurements of exercise at T1, T2 and 12 months (T3) and healthy eating at T1 and T3. Waist circumference, an indicator of abdominal obesity, was measured at T1 and at oneyear (T3) and three-year (T4) follow-ups. Agency and communion were measured at T4 with the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Results: (1) Increases in self-efficacy and planning were associated with three-month increases in exercise (Study I). Moreover, both the post-intervention level and three-month increases (during the intervention) in self-efficacy in dealing with barriers predicted the 12-month increase in exercise, and a high postintervention level of coping plans predicted the 12-month decrease in dietary fat (Study II). One- and three-year waist circumference reductions were predicted by the initial three-month increase in self-efficacy (Studies III, IV). (2) Post-intervention at three months, women had formed more action plans for changing their exercise routines and received less social support for behaviour change than men had. The effects of adoption self-efficacy were similar but change in planning played a less significant role among men (Study I). Examining the effects of socioeconomic status (SES), psychosocial determinants at baseline and their changes during the intervention yielded largely similar results. Exercise barriers self-efficacy was enhanced slightly less among those with low SES. Psychosocial determinants predicted behaviour similarly across all SES groups (Study II). (3) Dispositional optimism and pessimism were unrelated to waist circumference change, directly or indirectly, and they did not influence changes in self-efficacy (Study III). Agency predicted 12-month waist circumference reduction among women. High communion coupled with high social support was associated with waist circumference reduction. However, the only significant predictor of three-year waist circumference reduction was an increase in health-related self-efficacy during the intervention (Study IV). Conclusions: Interventions should focus on improving participants self-efficacy early on in the intervention as well as prompting action and coping planning for health behaviour change. Such changes are likely to be similarly effective among intervention participants regardless of gender and educational level. Agentic orientation may operate via helping women to be less affected by the demands of the self-sacrificing female role and enabling them to assertively focus on their own goals. The earlier mixed results regarding the role of social support in behaviour change may be in part explained by personality traits such as communion.