Double-strand break repair gene polymorphisms and risk of breast or ovarian cancer

Deficiencies in DNA repair have been hypothesized to increase cancer risk and excess cancer incidence is a feature of inherited diseases caused by defects in DNA damage recognition and repair. We investigated, using a case-control design, whether the double-strand break repair gene polymorphisms RAD51 5' untranslated region -135 G > C, XRCC2 R188H G > A, and XRCC3 T241M C > T were associated with risk of breast or ovarian cancer in Australian women. Sample sets included 1,456 breast cancer cases and 793 age-matched controls ages under 60 years of age, 549 incident ovarian cancer cases, and 335 controls of similar age distribution. For the total sample and the subsample of Caucasian women, there were no significant differences in genotype distribution between breast cancer cases and controls or between ovarian cancer cases and combined control groups. The crude odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) associated with the RAD51 GC/CC genotype frequency was OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.80-1.41 for breast cancer and OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.92-1.62 for ovarian cancer. Similarly, there were no increased risks associated with the XRCC2 GA/AA genotype (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.26 for breast cancer and OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69-1.25 for ovarian cancer) or the XRCC3 CT/TT genotype (OR, 0.92; 95% Cl, 0.77-1.10 for breast cancer and OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08 for ovarian cancer). Results were little changed after adjustment for age and other measured risk factors. Although there was little statistical power to detect modest increases in risk for the homozygote variant genotypes, particularly for the rare RAD51 and XRCC2 variants, the data suggest that none of these variants play a major role in the etiology of breast or ovarian cancer.

Testing the reliability of a new ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM, by using aortic flowprobes in anesthetized dogs

We have used an animal model to test the reliability of a new portable continuous-wave Doppler ultrasonic cardiac output monitor, the USCOM. In six anesthetized dogs, cardiac output was measured with a high-precision transit time ultrasonic flowprobe placed on the ascending aorta. The dogs' cardiac output was increased with a dopamine infusion (0-15 mug (.) kg(-1) (.) min(-1)). Simultaneous flowprobe and USCOM cardiac output measurements were made. Up to 64 pairs of readings were collected from each dog. Data were compared by using the Bland and Altman plot method and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. A total of 319 sets of paired readings were collected. The mean (+/-SD) cardiac output was 2.62 +/- 1.04 L/min, and readings ranged from 0.79 to 5.73 L/min. The mean bias between the 2 sets of readings was -0.01 L/min, with limits of agreement (95% confidence intervals) of -0.34 to 0.31 L/min. This represents a 13% error. In five of six dogs, there was a high degree of concordance, or agreement, between the 2 methods, with coefficients >0.9. The USCOM provided reliable measurements of cardiac output over a wide range of values. Clinical trials are needed to validate the device in humans.

The return to schooling: Estimates from a sample of young Australian twins

This study uses a sample of young Australian twins to examine whether the findings reported in [Ashenfelter, Orley and Krueger, Alan, (1994). 'Estimates of the Economic Return to Schooling from a New Sample of Twins', American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp.1157-73] and [Miller, P.W., Mulvey, C and Martin, N., (1994). 'What Do Twins Studies Tell Us About the Economic Returns to Education?: A Comparison of Australian and US Findings', Western Australian Labour Market Research Centre Discussion Paper 94/4] are robust to choice of sample and dependent variable. The economic return to schooling in Australia is between 5 and 7 percent when account is taken of genetic and family effects using either fixed-effects models or the selection effects model of Ashenfelter and Krueger. Given the similarity of the findings in this and in related studies, it would appear that the models applied by [Ashenfelter, Orley and Krueger, Alan, (1994). 'Estimates of the Economic Return to Schooling from a New Sample of Twins', American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 1157-73] are robust. Moreover, viewing the OLS and IV estimators as lower and upper bounds in the manner of [Black, Dan A., Berger, Mark C., and Scott, Frank C., (2000). 'Bounding Parameter Estimates with Nonclassical Measurement Error', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 95, No.451, pp.739-748], it is shown that the bounds on the return to schooling in Australia are much tighter than in [Ashenfelter, Orley and Krueger, Alan, (1994). 'Estimates of the Economic Return to Schooling from a New Sample of Twins', American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 5, pp. 1157-73], and the return is bounded at a much lower level than in the US. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Acute alcohol consumption and mechanism of injury

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether injury mechanism among injured patients is differentially distributed as a function of acute alcohol consumption (quantity, type, and drinking setting). Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2000 and October 2001 in the Gold Coast Hospital Emergency Department, Queensland, Australia. Data were collected quarterly over a 12-month period. Every injured patient who presented to the emergency department during the study period for treatment of an injury sustained less than 24 hours prior to presentation was approached for interview. The final sample comprised 593 injured patients (males = 377). Three measures of alcohol consumption in the 6 hours prior to injury were obtained from self-report: quantity, beverage type, and drinking setting. The main outcome measure was mechanism of injury which was categorized into six groups: road traffic crash (RTC), being hit by or against something, fall, cut/piercing, overdose/poisoning, and miscellaneous. Injury intent was also measured (intentional vs unintentional). Results: After controlling for relevant confounding variables, neither quantity nor type of alcohol was significantly associated with injury mechanism. However, drinking setting (i.e., licensed premise) was significantly associated with increased odds of sustaining an intentional versus unintentional injury (odds ratio [OR] = 2.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-5.6); injury through being hit by/against something versus other injury types (OR = 2.59, 95% CI = 1.4-4.9); and reduced odds of sustaining an injury through RTC versus non-RTC (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.004-0.9), compared with not drinking alcohol prior to injury. Conclusions: No previous analytical studies have examined the relationship between injury mechanism and acute alcohol consumption (quantity, type, and setting) across all types of injury and all injury severities while controlling for potentially important confounders (demographic and situational confounders, risk-taking behavior, substance use, and usual drinking patterns). These data suggest that among injured patients, mechanism of injury is not differentially distributed as a function of quantity or type of acute alcohol consumption but may be differentially distributed as a function of drinking setting (i.e., RTC, intentional injury, being hit). Therefore, prevention strategies that focus primarily on the quantity and type of alcohol consumed should be directed generically across injury mechanisms and not limited to particular cause of injury campaigns.

Handedness in twins: Joint analysis of data from 35 samples

Simultaneous analysis of handedness data from 35 samples of twins (with a combined sample size of 21,127 twin pairs) found a small but significant additive genetic effect accounting for 25.47% of the variance (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.69-29.51%). No common environmental influences were detected (C = 0.00; 95% Cl 0.00-7.67%), with the majority of the variance, 74.53%, explained by factors unique to the individual (95% Cl 70.49-78.67%). No significant heterogeneity was observed within studies that used similar methods to assess handedness, or across studies that used different methods. At an individual level the majority of studies had insufficient power to reject a purely unique environmental model due to insufficient power to detect familial aggregation. This lack of power is seldom mentioned within studies, and has contributed to the misconception that twin studies of handedness are not informative.