The INSIG2 rs7566605 polymorphism is not associated with body mass index and breast cancer risk

Background The single nucleotide polymorphism rs7566605, located in the promoter of the INSIG2 gene, has been the subject of a strong scientific effort aimed to elucidate its possible association with body mass index (BMI). The first report showing that rs7566605 could be associated with body fatness was a genome-wide association study (GWAS) which used BMI as the primary phenotype. Many follow-up studies sought to validate the association of rs7566605 with various markers of obesity, with several publications reporting inconsistent findings. BMI is considered to be one of the measures of choice to evaluate body fatness and there is evidence that body fatness is related with an increased risk of breast cancer (BC). Methods we tested in a large-scale association study (3,973 women, including 1,269 invasive BC cases and 2,194 controls), nested within the EPIC cohort, the involvement of rs7566605 as predictor of BMI and BC risk. Results and Conclusions In this study we were not able to find any statistically significant association between this SNP and BMI, nor did we find any significant association between the SNP and an increased risk of breast cancer overall and by subgroups of age, or menopausal status.

Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

Obesity and survival in operable breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant anthracyclines and taxanes according to pathological subtypes: a pooled analysis.

INTRODUCTION Obesity is an unfavorable prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC) patients regardless of menopausal status and treatment received. However, the association between obesity and survival outcome by pathological subtype requires further clarification. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis including 5,683 operable BC patients enrolled in four randomized clinical trials (GEICAM/9906, GEICAM/9805, GEICAM/2003-02, and BCIRG 001) evaluating anthracyclines and taxanes as adjuvant treatments. Our primary aim was to assess the prognostic effect of body mass index (BMI) on disease recurrence, breast cancer mortality (BCM), and overall mortality (OM). A secondary aim was to detect differences of such prognostic effects by subtype. RESULTS Multivariate survival analyses adjusting for age, tumor size, nodal status, menopausal status, surgery type, histological grade, hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, chemotherapy regimen, and under-treatment showed that obese patients (BMI 30.0 to 34.9) had similar prognoses to that of patients with a BMI < 25 (reference group) in terms of recurrence (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.90 to 1.30), BCM (HR = 1.02, 0.81 to 1.29), and OM (HR = 0.97, 0.78 to 1.19). Patients with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35) had a significantly increased risk of recurrence (HR = 1.26, 1.00 to 1.59, P = 0.048), BCM (HR = 1.32, 1.00 to 1.74, P = 0.050), and OM (HR = 1.35, 1.06 to 1.71, P = 0.016) compared to our reference group. The prognostic effect of severe obesity did not vary by subtype. CONCLUSIONS Severely obese patients treated with anthracyclines and taxanes present a worse prognosis regarding recurrence, BCM, and OM than patients with BMI < 25. The magnitude of the harmful effect of BMI on survival-related outcomes was similar across subtypes.