A Genome-Wide Association Study of Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers Conducted within the INHANCE Consortium

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been successful in identifying common genetic variation involved in susceptibility to etiologically complex disease. We conducted a GWAS to identify common genetic variation involved in susceptibility to upper aero-digestive tract (UADT) cancers. Genome-wide genotyping was carried out using the Illumina HumanHap300 beadchips in 2,091 UADT cancer cases and 3,513 controls from two large European multi-centre UADT cancer studies, as well as 4,821 generic controls. The 19 top-ranked variants were investigated further in an additional 6,514 UADT cancer cases and 7,892 controls of European descent from an additional 13 UADT cancer studies participating in the INHANCE consortium. Five common variants presented evidence for significant association in the combined analysis (p≤5×10−7). Two novel variants were identified, a 4q21 variant (rs1494961, p = 1×10−8) located near DNA repair related genes HEL308 and FAM175A (or Abraxas) and a 12q24 variant (rs4767364, p = 2×10−8) located in an extended linkage disequilibrium region that contains multiple genes including the aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 (ALDH2) gene. Three remaining variants are located in the ADH gene cluster and were identified previously in a candidate gene study involving some of these samples. The association between these three variants and UADT cancers was independently replicated in 5,092 UADT cancer cases and 6,794 controls non-overlapping samples presented here (rs1573496-ADH7, p = 5×10−8; rs1229984-ADH1B, p = 7×10−9; and rs698-ADH1C, p = 0.02). These results implicate two variants at 4q21 and 12q24 and further highlight three ADH variants in UADT cancer susceptibility.

Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials.

A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials. In a breakout session, workshop attendees discussed necessary data elements and standards for the accurate measurement of DILI risk associated with new therapeutic agents in clinical trials. There was agreement that in order to achieve this goal the systematic acquisition of protocol-specified clinical measures and lab specimens from all study subjects is crucial. In addition, standard DILI terms that address the diverse clinical and pathologic signatures of DILI were considered essential. There was a strong consensus that clinical and lab analyses necessary for the evaluation of cases of acute liver injury should be consistent with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on pre-marketing risk assessment of DILI in clinical trials issued in 2009. A recommendation that liver injury case review and management be guided by clinicians with hepatologic expertise was made. Of note, there was agreement that emerging DILI signals should prompt the systematic collection of candidate pharmacogenomic, proteomic and/or metabonomic biomarkers from all study subjects. The use of emerging standardized clinical terminology, CRFs and graphic tools for data review to enable harmonization across clinical trials was strongly encouraged. Many of the recommendations made in the breakout session are in alignment with those made in the other parallel sessions on methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, causality assessment for suspected DILI, and liver safety assessment in special populations (hepatitis B, C, and oncology trials). Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues remain for future consideration.