Contemporary results of focal therapy for prostate cancer using cryoablation.

The concept of focal therapy is rapidly evolving and gaining popularity from both physician and patient perspectives. We review the rationale, candidate selection, and results of the first clinical studies of focal cryoablation for selected patients with low volume and low- to low-moderate-risk features of prostate cancer as an alternative to whole-gland treatment. In spite of improved understanding of the tumor biology of early stage disease, we currently have limited tools to select appropriate patients with low- to low-moderate risk unifocal or unilateral prostate cancer who may be amenable to focal therapy. From a technical point, a number of ablative treatment options for focal therapy are available, with cryoablation having the most clinical experience. Recently, several reports have been published from single and multi-institutional studies that discuss focal therapy as a reasonable balance between cancer control and quality-of-life outcomes. Retrospective pathologic data from large prostatectomy series, however, do not clearly reveal valid and reproducible criteria to select appropriate candidates for focal cryoablation because of the complexity of tumorigenesis in early stage disease. At this time, a more feasible option remains hemiablation of the prostate with reasonable certainty about the absence of clinically significant cancer lesion(s) on the contralateral side of the prostate based on three-dimensional transperineal prostate biopsy mapping studies. Minimally invasive, parenchyma-preserving cryoablation can be considered as a potential feasible option in the treatment armamentarium of early stage, localized prostate cancer in appropriately selected candidates. There is a need to further test this technique in randomized, multicenter clinical trials.

Researcher practices on returning genetic research results.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: as genetic and genomic research proliferates, debate has ensued about returning results to participants. In addition to consideration of the benefits and harms to participants, researchers must also consider the logistical and financial feasibility of returning research results. However, little data exist of actual researcher practices. METHODS: we conducted an online survey of 446 corresponding authors of genetic/genomic studies conducted in the United States and published in 2006-2007 to assess the frequency with which they considered, offered to, or actually returned research results, what factors influenced these decisions, and the method of communicating results. RESULTS: the response rate was 24% (105/446). Fifty-four percent of respondents considered the issue of returning research results to participants, 28% offered to return individual research results, and 24% actually returned individual research results. Of those who considered the issue of returning research results during the study planning phase, the most common factors considered were whether research results were deemed clinically useful (18%) and respect for participants (13%). Researchers who had a medical degree and conducted studies on children were significantly more likely to offer to return or actually return individual results compared to those with a Ph.D. only. CONCLUSIONS: we speculate that issues associated with clinical validity and respect for participants dominated concerns of time and expense given the prominent and continuing ethical debates surrounding genetics and genomics research. The substantial number of researchers who did not consider returning research results suggests that researchers and institutional review boards need to devote more attention to a topic about which research participants are interested.

Integrated pathway and epistasis analysis reveals interactive effect of genetic variants at TERF1 and AFAP1L2 loci on melanoma risk.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have characterized 13 loci associated with melanoma, which only account for a small part of melanoma risk. To identify new genes with too small an effect to be detected individually but which collectively influence melanoma risk and/or show interactive effects, we used a two-step analysis strategy including pathway analysis of genome-wide SNP data, in a first step, and epistasis analysis within significant pathways, in a second step. Pathway analysis, using the gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) approach and the gene ontology (GO) database, was applied to the outcomes of MELARISK (3,976 subjects) and MDACC (2,827 subjects) GWASs. Cross-gene SNP-SNP interaction analysis within melanoma-associated GOs was performed using the INTERSNP software. Five GO categories were significantly enriched in genes associated with melanoma (false discovery rate ≤ 5% in both studies): response to light stimulus, regulation of mitotic cell cycle, induction of programmed cell death, cytokine activity and oxidative phosphorylation. Epistasis analysis, within each of the five significant GOs, showed significant evidence for interaction for one SNP pair at TERF1 and AFAP1L2 loci (pmeta-int  = 2.0 × 10(-7) , which met both the pathway and overall multiple-testing corrected thresholds that are equal to 9.8 × 10(-7) and 2.0 × 10(-7) , respectively) and suggestive evidence for another pair involving correlated SNPs at the same loci (pmeta-int  = 3.6 × 10(-6) ). This interaction has important biological relevance given the key role of TERF1 in telomere biology and the reported physical interaction between TERF1 and AFAP1L2 proteins. This finding brings a novel piece of evidence for the emerging role of telomere dysfunction into melanoma development.