Breast-feeding and childhood-onset type 1 diabetes:A pooled analysis of individual participant data from 43 observational studies

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if there is a reduced risk of type 1 diabetes in children breastfed or exclusively breastfed by performing a pooled analysis with adjustment for recognized confounders.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Relevant studies were identified from literature searches using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Authors of relevant studies were asked to provide individual participant data or conduct prespecified analyses. Meta-analysis techniques were used to combine odds ratios (ORs) and investigate heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS: Data were available from 43 studies including 9,874 patients with type 1 diabetes. Overall, there was a reduction in the risk of diabetes after exclusive breast-feeding for >2 weeks (20 studies; OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88), the association after exclusive breast-feeding for >3 months was weaker (30 studies; OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.00), and no association was observed after (nonexclusive) breast-feeding for >2 weeks (28 studies; OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.07) or >3 months (29 studies; OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.00). These associations were all subject to marked heterogeneity (I(2) = 58, 76, 54, and 68%, respectively). In studies with lower risk of bias, the reduced risk after exclusive breast-feeding for >2 weeks remained (12 studies; OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99), and heterogeneity was reduced (I(2) = 0%). Adjustments for potential confounders altered these estimates very little.
CONCLUSIONS: The pooled analysis suggests weak protective associations between exclusive breast-feeding and type 1 diabetes risk. However, these findings are difficult to interpret because of the marked variation in effect and possible biases (particularly recall bias) inherent in the included studies.

'Grooming' and the Sexual Abuse of Children:Institutional, Internet and Familial Dimensions

‘Grooming’ and the Sexual Abuse of Children: Institutional, Internet and Familial Dimensions critically examines the official and popular discourses on grooming, predominantly framed within the context of on-line sexual exploitation and abuse committed by strangers, and institutional child abuse committed by those in positions of trust.

Set against the broader theoretical framework of risk, security and governance, this book argues that due to the difficulties of drawing clear boundaries between innocuous and harmful motivations towards children, pre-emptive risk-based criminal law and policy are inherently limited in preventing, targeting and criminalising ‘grooming’ behaviour prior to the manifestation of actual harm. Through examination of grooming against the complexities of the onset of sexual offending against children and its actual role in this process, the author broadens existing discourses by providing a fuller, more nuanced conceptualisation of grooming, including its role in intra-familial and extra-familial contexts. There is also timely discussion of new and emerging forms of grooming, such as ‘street’ or ‘localised’ grooming, as typified by recent cases in Rochdale and Oldham, and ‘peer-to-peer’ grooming.

The first inter-disciplinary, thematic, and empirical investigation of grooming in a multi-jurisdictional context, ‘Grooming’ and the Sexual Abuse of Children draws on extensive empirical research in the form of over fifty interviews with professionals, working in the fields of sex offender risk assessment, management or treatment, as well as child protection or victim support in the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Impeccably presented and meticulously considered, this book will be of interest to criminologists and those working and studying in the field of policing and criminal justice studies, as well as policy makers and practitioners in the areas of child protection and sex offender management.

Genome-wide association study identifies a common variant in RAD51B associated with male breast cancer risk

We conducted a genome-wide association study of male breast cancer comprising 823 cases and 2,795 controls of European ancestry, with validation in independent sample sets totaling 438 cases and 474 controls. A SNP in RAD51B at 14q24.1 was significantly associated with male breast cancer risk (P = 3.02 × 10(-13); odds ratio (OR) = 1.57). We also refine association at 16q12.1 to a SNP within TOX3 (P = 3.87 × 10(-15); OR = 1.50).

A whole-genome massively parallel sequencing analysis of BRCA1 mutant oestrogen receptor-negative and -positive breast cancers

BRCA1 encodes a tumour suppressor protein that plays pivotal roles in homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair, cell-cycle checkpoints, and transcriptional regulation. BRCA1 germline mutations confer a high risk of early-onset breast and ovarian cancer. In more than 80% of cases, tumours arising in BRCA1 germline mutation carriers are oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative; however, up to 15% are ER-positive. It has been suggested that BRCA1 ER-positive breast cancers constitute sporadic cancers arising in the context of a BRCA1 germline mutation rather than being causally related to BRCA1 loss-of-function. Whole-genome massively parallel sequencing of ER-positive and ER-negative BRCA1 breast cancers, and their respective germline DNAs, was used to characterize the genetic landscape of BRCA1 cancers at base-pair resolution. Only BRCA1 germline mutations, somatic loss of the wild-type allele, and TP53 somatic mutations were recurrently found in the index cases. BRCA1 breast cancers displayed a mutational signature consistent with that caused by lack of HR DNA repair in both ER-positive and ER-negative cases. Sequencing analysis of independent cohorts of hereditary BRCA1 and sporadic non-BRCA1 breast cancers for the presence of recurrent pathogenic mutations and/or homozygous deletions found in the index cases revealed that DAPK3, TMEM135, KIAA1797, PDE4D, and GATA4 are potential additional drivers of breast cancers. This study demonstrates that BRCA1 pathogenic germline mutations coupled with somatic loss of the wild-type allele are not sufficient for hereditary breast cancers to display an ER-negative phenotype, and has led to the identification of three potential novel breast cancer genes (ie DAPK3, TMEM135, and GATA4).

Dietary fat and breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis

As the number of breast cancer survivors increases worldwide(1), there is growing interest in the potential effect of dietary and lifestyle behaviours on overall prognosis. This is especially important as a cancer diagnosis is often referred to as a ‘teachable moment’(2) as patients seek information about lifestyle behaviours and so provision of evidence-based guidelines is essential. A positive association between dietary fat and breast cancer risk has been previously reported(3) but its influence upon breast cancer survival is unclear. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to critically appraise the literature published to date and to conduct meta-analyses to pool the results of studies to clarify the association between dietary fat and breast cancer survival.
Relevant articles published up to March 2011 that examined dietary fat and breast cancer recurrence and survival were identified from searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Meta-analyses were conducted in which we evaluated the risk of all-cause or breast cancer death in women in the highest compared with the lowest categories of total fat intake (g/d) and per 20 g increase in intake of dietary fat. Multivariable adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% CI from individual studies were weighted and combined using a random-effects model to produce a pooled estimate.
Twelve prospective cohort studies that investigated total fat intake (g) and breast cancer survival, and/or provided information on fat intake from which a linear trend could be estimated, were included in the analyses. There was no evidence of a difference in risk of breast cancer death (RR=1.14; 95% CI 0.86, 1.52; P=0.34) or all cause death (RR=1.73; 95% CI 0.82, 3.6; P=0.15) between the highest and lowest categories of total fat intake. Similarly, no significant difference in risk of breast cancer death (RR=1.03; 95% CI 0.97, 1.10; P=0.261) or all-cause death (RR=1.06; 95% CI 0.88, 1.28; P=0.52) was found per linear (20 g) increase in total fat intake.
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis do not support an association between total dietary fat and breast cancer survival. Further investigation into the effect of specific types of dietary fat and breast cancer survival is of interest.