No evidence for association of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene T2119C and C3161G amino acid substitution variants with risk of breast cancer

Background There is evidence that certain mutations in the double-strand break repair pathway ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene act in a dominant-negative manner to increase the risk of breast cancer. There are also some reports to suggest that the amino acid substitution variants T2119C Ser707Pro and C3161G Pro1054Arg may be associated with breast cancer risk. We investigate the breast cancer risk associated with these two nonconservative amino acid substitution variants using a large Australian population-based case–control study. Methods The polymorphisms were genotyped in more than 1300 cases and 600 controls using 5' exonuclease assays. Case–control analyses and genotype distributions were compared by logistic regression. Results The 2119C variant was rare, occurring at frequencies of 1.4 and 1.3% in cases and controls, respectively (P = 0.8). There was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.8), and the TC genotype was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = 0.59–1.97, P = 0.8). Similarly, the 3161G variant was no more common in cases than in controls (2.9% versus 2.2%, P = 0.2), there was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.1), and the CG genotype was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.85–1.98, P = 0.2). This lack of evidence for an association persisted within groups defined by the family history of breast cancer or by age. Conclusion The 2119C and 3161G amino acid substitution variants are not associated with moderate or high risks of breast cancer in Australian women.

The Scored Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and its Association with Quality of Life in Ambulatory Patients Receiving Radiotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the scored Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) tool as an outcome measure in clinical nutrition practice and determine its association with quality of life (QoL). DESIGN: A prospective 4 week study assessing the nutritional status and QoL of ambulatory patients receiving radiation therapy to the head, neck, rectal or abdominal area. SETTING: Australian radiation oncology facilities. SUBJECTS: Sixty cancer patients aged 24-85 y. INTERVENTION: Scored PG-SGA questionnaire, subjective global assessment (SGA), QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3). RESULTS: According to SGA, 65.0% (39) of subjects were well-nourished, 28.3% (17) moderately or suspected of being malnourished and 6.7% (4) severely malnourished. PG-SGA score and global QoL were correlated (r=-0.66, P<0.001) at baseline. There was a decrease in nutritional status according to PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and SGA (P<0.001); and a decrease in global QoL (P<0.001) after 4 weeks of radiotherapy. There was a linear trend for change in PG-SGA score (P<0.001) and change in global QoL (P=0.003) between those patients who improved (5%) maintained (56.7%) or deteriorated (33.3%) in nutritional status according to SGA. There was a correlation between change in PG-SGA score and change in QoL after 4 weeks of radiotherapy (r=-0.55, P<0.001). Regression analysis determined that 26% of the variation of change in QoL was explained by change in PG-SGA (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: The scored PG-SGA is a nutrition assessment tool that identifies malnutrition in ambulatory oncology patients receiving radiotherapy and can be used to predict the magnitude of change in QoL.

Social justice and high-quality human services : visioning the place of a contemporary professional association

The current world situation is plagued by “wicked problems” and a widespread sense of “things are going to get worse”. We confront the almost imponderable consequences of global habitat destruction and climate change, as well as the meltdown of the financial markets with their largely yet to be seen damage to the “real economy”. These things will have considerable negative impacts on the social system and people's lives, particularly the disadvantaged and socially excluded, and require innovative policy and program responses delivered by caring, intelligent, and committed practitioners. These gargantuan issues put into perspective the difficulties that confront social, welfare, and community work today. Yet, in times of trouble, social work and human services tend to do well. For example, although Australian Social Workers and Welfare and Community Workers have experienced phenomenal job growth over the past 5 years, they also have good prospects for future growth and above average salaries in the seventh and sixth deciles, respectively (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2008). I aim to examine the host of reasons why the pursuit of social justice and high-quality human services is difficult to attain in today's world and then consider how the broadly defined profession of social welfare practitioners may collectively take action to (a) respond in ways that reassert our role in compassionately assisting the downtrodden and (b) reclaim the capacity to be a significant body of professional expertise driving social policy and programs. For too long social work has responded to the wider factors it confronts through a combination of ignoring them, critiquing from a distance, and concentrating on the job at hand and our day-to-day responsibilities. Unfortunately, “holding the line” has proved futile and, little by little, the broad social mandate and role of social welfare has altered until, currently, most social programs entail significant social surveillance of troublesome or dangerous groups, rather than assistance. At times it almost seems like the word “help” has been lost in the political and managerial lexicon, replaced by “manage” and “control”. Our values, beliefs, and ethics are under real threat as guiding principles for social programs.

Conference Report of the First Meeting of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association, 21-23 May 2009, Department of American Indian Studies, University of Minneapolis, Minesota, United States of America

Report provided back by Bronwyn Fredericks on her participation at the First Native American and Indigenous Studies Association Meeting held 21-23 May 2009 in Minnesota, United States of America.

Australian Association for Exercise and Sport Science position stand : optimising cancer outcomes through exercise

Cancer represents a major public health concern in Australia. Causes of cancer are multifactorial with lack of physical activity being considered one of the known risk factors, particularly for breast and colorectal cancers. Participating in exercise has also been associated with benefits during and following treatment for cancer, including improvements in psychosocial and physical outcomes, as well as better compliance with treatment regimens, reduced impact of disease symptoms and treatment-related side effects, and survival benefits for particular cancers. The general exercise prescription for people undertaking or having completed cancer treatment is of low to moderate intensity, regular frequency (3-5 times/week) for at least 20 minutes per session, involving aerobic, resistance or mixed exercise types. Future work needs to push the boundaries of this exercise prescription, so that we can better understand what constitutes optimal, desirable and necessary frequency, duration, intensity and type, and how specific characteristics of the individual (e.g., age, cancer type, treatment, presence of specific symptoms) influence this prescription. What follows is a summary of the cancer and exercise literature, in particular the purpose of exercise following diagnosis of cancer, the potential benefits derived by cancer patients and survivors from participating in exercise programs, and exercise prescription guidelines and contraindications or considerations for exercise prescription with this special population. This report represents the position stand of the Australian Association of Exercise and Sport Science on exercise and cancer recovery and has the purpose of guiding Accredited Exercise Physiologists in their work with cancer patients.