A large study of androgen receptor germline variants and their relation to sex hormone levels and prostate cancer risk. Results from the National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium

Background: Androgens are key regulators of prostate gland maintenance and prostate cancer growth, and androgen deprivation therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer for many years. A long-standing hypothesis has been that inherited variation in the androgen receptor (AR) gene plays a role in prostate cancer initiation. However, studies to date have been inconclusive and often suffered from small sample sizes. Objective and Methods: We investigated the association of AR sequence variants with circulating sex hormone levels and prostate cancer risk in 6058 prostate cancer cases and 6725 controls of Caucasian origin within the Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium. We genotyped a highly polymorphic CAG microsatellite in exon 1 and six haplotype tagging single nucleotide polymorphisms and tested each genetic variant for association with prostate cancer risk and with sex steroid levels. Results: We observed no association between AR genetic variants and prostate cancer risk. However, there was a strong association between longer CAG repeats and higher levels of testosterone (P = 4.73 × 10−5) and estradiol (P = 0.0002), although the amount of variance explained was small (0.4 and 0.7%, respectively). Conclusions: This study is the largest to date investigating AR sequence variants, sex steroid levels, and prostate cancer risk. Although we observed no association between AR sequence variants and prostate cancer risk, our results support earlier findings of a relation between the number of CAG repeats and circulating levels of testosterone and estradiol.

"The 3/3 strategy": a successful multifaceted hospital wide hand hygiene intervention based on WHO and continuous quality improvement methodology.

BACKGROUND Only multifaceted hospital wide interventions have been successful in achieving sustained improvements in hand hygiene (HH) compliance. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Pre-post intervention study of HH performance at baseline (October 2007-December 2009) and during intervention, which included two phases. Phase 1 (2010) included multimodal WHO approach. Phase 2 (2011) added Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) tools and was based on: a) Increase of alcohol hand rub (AHR) solution placement (from 0.57 dispensers/bed to 1.56); b) Increase in frequency of audits (three days every three weeks: "3/3 strategy"); c) Implementation of a standardized register form of HH corrective actions; d) Statistical Process Control (SPC) as time series analysis methodology through appropriate control charts. During the intervention period we performed 819 scheduled direct observation audits which provided data from 11,714 HH opportunities. The most remarkable findings were: a) significant improvements in HH compliance with respect to baseline (25% mean increase); b) sustained high level (82%) of HH compliance during intervention; c) significant increase in AHRs consumption over time; c) significant decrease in the rate of healthcare-acquired MRSA; d) small but significant improvements in HH compliance when comparing phase 2 to phase 1 [79.5% (95% CI: 78.2-80.7) vs 84.6% (95% CI:83.8-85.4), p<0.05]; e) successful use of control charts to identify significant negative and positive deviations (special causes) related to the HH compliance process over time ("positive": 90.1% as highest HH compliance coinciding with the "World hygiene day"; and "negative":73.7% as lowest HH compliance coinciding with a statutory lay-off proceeding). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE CQI tools may be a key addition to WHO strategy to maintain a good HH performance over time. In addition, SPC has shown to be a powerful methodology to detect special causes in HH performance (positive and negative) and to help establishing adequate feedback to healthcare workers.

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.