Common genetic influences underlie comorbidity of migraine and endometriosis

We examined the co-occurrence of migraine and endometriosis within the largest known collection of families containing multiple women with surgically confirmed endometriosis and in an independent sample of 815 monozygotic and 457 dizygotic female twin pairs. Within the endometriosis families, a significantly increased risk of migrainous headache was observed in women with endometriosis compared to women without endometriosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-2.21, P=0.009). Bivariate heritability analyses indicated no evidence for common environmental factors influencing either migraine or endometriosis but significant genetic components for both traits, with heritability estimates of 69 and 49%, respectively. Importantly, a significant additive genetic correlation (r(G) = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.06-0.47) and bivariate heritability (h(2)=0.17, 95% CI: 0.08-0.27) was observed between migraine and endometriosis. Controlling for the personality trait neuroticism made little impact on this association. These results confirm the previously reported comorbidity between migraine and endometriosis and indicate common genetic influences completely explain their co-occurrence within individuals. Given pharmacological treatments for endometriosis typically target hormonal pathways and a number of findings provide support for a relationship between hormonal variations and migraine, hormone-related genes and pathways are highly plausible candidates for both migraine and endometriosis. Therefore, taking into account the status of both migraine and endometriosis may provide a novel opportunity to identify the genes underlying them. Finally, we propose that the analysis of such genetically correlated comorbid traits can increase power to detect genetic risk loci through the use of more specific, homogenous and heritable phenotypes.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.