Sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with the development of different burnout types: the cross-sectional University of Zaragoza study

BACKGROUND: Three different burnout types have been described: The "frenetic" type describes involved and ambitious subjects who sacrifice their health and personal lives for their jobs; the "underchallenged" type describes indifferent and bored workers who fail to find personal development in their jobs, and the "worn-out" in type describes neglectful subjects who feel they have little control over results and whose efforts go unacknowledged. The study aimed to describe the possible associations between burnout types and general sociodemographic and occupational characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out on a multi-occupational sample of randomly selected university employees (n = 409). The presence of burnout types was assessed by means of the "Burnout Clinical Subtype Questionnaire (BCSQ-36)", and the degree of association between variables was assessed using an adjusted odds ratio (OR) obtained from multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Individuals working more than 40 hours per week presented with the greatest risk for "frenetic" burnout compared to those working fewer than 35 hours (adjusted OR = 5.69; 95% CI = 2.52-12.82; p < 0.001). Administration and service personnel presented the greatest risk of "underchallenged" burnout compared to teaching and research staff (adjusted OR = 2.85; 95% CI = 1.16-7.01; p = 0.023). Employees with more than sixteen years of service in the organisation presented the greatest risk of "worn-out" burnout compared to those with less than four years of service (adjusted OR = 4.56; 95% CI = 1.47-14.16; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to our knowledge that suggests the existence of associations between the different burnout subtypes (classified according to the degree of dedication to work) and the different sociodemographic and occupational characteristics that are congruent with the definition of each of the subtypes. These results are consistent with the clinical profile definitions of burnout syndrome. In addition, they assist the recognition of distinct profiles and reinforce the idea of differential characterisation of the syndrome for more effective treatment.

Clinical pharmacogenomic testing of KRAS, BRAF and EGFR mutations by high resolution melting analysis and ultra-deep pyrosequencing

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its downstream factors KRAS and BRAF are mutated in several types of cancer, affecting the clinical response to EGFR inhibitors. Mutations in the EGFR kinase domain predict sensitivity to the tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib in lung adenocarcinoma, while activating point mutations in KRAS and BRAF confer resistance to the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab in colorectal cancer. The development of new generation methods for systematic mutation screening of these genes will allow more appropriate therapeutic choices. METHODS: We describe a high resolution melting (HRM) assay for mutation detection in EGFR exons 19-21, KRAS codon 12/13 and BRAF V600 using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples. Somatic variation of KRAS exon 2 was also analysed by massively parallel pyrosequencing of amplicons with the GS Junior 454 platform. RESULTS: We tested 120 routine diagnostic specimens from patients with colorectal or lung cancer. Mutations in KRAS, BRAF and EGFR were observed in 41.9%, 13.0% and 11.1% of the overall samples, respectively, being mutually exclusive. For KRAS, six types of substitutions were detected (17 G12D, 9 G13D, 7 G12C, 2 G12A, 2 G12V, 2 G12S), while V600E accounted for all the BRAF activating mutations. Regarding EGFR, two cases showed exon 19 deletions (delE746-A750 and delE746-T751insA) and another two substitutions in exon 21 (one showed L858R with the resistance mutation T590M in exon 20, and the other had P848L mutation). Consistent with earlier reports, our results show that KRAS and BRAF mutation frequencies in colorectal cancer were 44.3% and 13.0%, respectively, while EGFR mutations were detected in 11.1% of the lung cancer specimens. Ultra-deep amplicon pyrosequencing successfully validated the HRM results and allowed detection and quantitation of KRAS somatic mutations. CONCLUSIONS: HRM is a rapid and sensitive method for moderate-throughput cost-effective screening of oncogene mutations in clinical samples. Rather than Sanger sequence validation, next-generation sequencing technology results in more accurate quantitative results in somatic variation and can be achieved at a higher throughput scale.