Danish Cancer Society

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

BACKGROUND: Irradiation after mastectomy can reduce locoregional recurrences in women with breast cancer, but whether it prolongs survival remains controversial. We conducted a randomized trial of radiotherapy after mastectomy in high-risk premenopausal women, all of whom also received adjuvant systemic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF). METHODS: A total of 1708 women who had undergone mastectomy for pathological stage II or III breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive eight cycles of CMF plus irradiation of the chest wall and regional lymph nodes (852 women) or nine cycles of CMF alone (856 women). The median length of follow-up was 114 months. The end points were locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: The frequency of locoregional recurrence alone or with distant metastases was 9 percent among the women who received radiotherapy plus CMF and 32 percent among those who received CMF alone (P<0.001). The probability of survival free of disease after 10 years was 48 percent among the women assigned to radiotherapy plus CMF and 34 percent among those treated only with CMF (P<0.001). Overall survival at 10 years was 54 percent among those given radiotherapy and CMF and 45 percent among those who received CMF alone (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that irradiation after mastectomy significantly improved disease-free survival and overall survival, irrespective of tumor size, the number of positive nodes, or the histopathological grade. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of postoperative irradiation to mastectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy reduces locoregional recurrences and prolongs survival in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer.

Autophagy is a catabolic process aimed at recycling cellular components and damaged organelles in response to diverse conditions of stress, such as nutrient deprivation, viral infection and genotoxic stress. A growing amount of evidence in recent years argues for oxidative stress acting as the converging point of these stimuli, with reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) being among the main intracellular signal transducers sustaining autophagy. This review aims at providing novel insight into the regulatory pathways of autophagy in response to glucose and amino acid deprivation, as well as their tight interconnection with metabolic networks and redox homeostasis. The role of oxidative and nitrosative stress in autophagy is also discussed in the light of its being harmful for both cellular biomolecules and signal mediator through reversible posttranslational modifications of thiol-containing proteins. The redox-independent relationship between autophagy and antioxidant response, occurring through the p62/Keap1/Nrf2 pathway, is also addressed in order to provide a wide perspective upon the interconnection between autophagy and oxidative stress. Herein, we also attempt to afford an overview of the complex crosstalk between autophagy and DNA damage response (DDR), focusing on the main pathways activated upon ROS and RNS overproduction. Along these lines, the direct and indirect role of autophagy in DDR is dissected in depth.

The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) is an ongoing multi-centre prospective cohort study designed to investigate the relationship between nutrition and cancer, with the potential for studying other diseases as well. The study currently includes 519 978 participants (366 521 women and 153 457 men, mostly aged 35-70 years) in 23 centres located in 10 European countries, to be followed for cancer incidence and cause-specific mortality for several decades. At enrollment, which took place between 1992 and 2000 at each of the different centres, information was collected through a non-dietary questionnaire on lifestyle variables and through a dietary questionnaire addressing usual diet. Anthropometric measurements were performed and blood samples taken, from which plasma, serum, red cells and buffy coat fractions were separated and aliquoted for long-term storage, mostly in liquid nitrogen. To calibrate dietary measurements, a standardised, computer-assisted 24-hour dietary recall was implemented at each centre on stratified random samples of the participants, for a total of 36 900 subjects. EPIC represents the largest single resource available today world-wide for prospective investigations on the aetiology of cancers (and other diseases) that can integrate questionnaire data on lifestyle and diet, biomarkers of diet and of endogenous metabolism (e.g. hormones and growth factors) and genetic polymorphisms. First results of case-control studies nested within the cohort are expected early in 2003. The present paper provides a description of the EPIC study, with the aim of simplifying reference to it in future papers reporting substantive or methodological studies carried out in the EPIC cohort.

Of all types of DNA damage, DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) pose the greatest challenge to cells. One might have, therefore, anticipated that a sizable number of DNA DSBs would be incompatible with cell proliferation. Yet recent experimental findings suggest that, in both precancerous lesions and cancers, activated oncogenes induce stalling and collapse of DNA replication forks, which in turn leads to formation of DNA DSBs. This continuous formation of DNA DSBs may contribute to the genomic instability that characterizes the vast majority of human cancers. In addition, in precancerous lesions, these DNA DSBs activate p53, which, by inducing apoptosis or senescence, raises a barrier to tumor progression. Breach of this barrier by various mechanisms, most notably by p53 mutations, that impair the DNA damage response pathway allows cancers to develop. Thus, oncogene-induced DNA damage may explain two key features of cancer: genomic instability and the high frequency of p53 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prognosis of cancer discovered during or after an episode of venous thromboembolism. METHODS: We linked the Danish National Registry of Patients, the Danish Cancer Registry, and the Danish Mortality Files to obtain data on the survival of patients who received a diagnosis of cancer at the same time as or after an episode of venous thromboembolism. Their survival was compared with that of patients with cancer who did not have venous thromboembolism (control patients), who were matched in terms of type of cancer, age, sex, and year of diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 668 patients who had cancer at the time of an episode of deep venous thromboembolism, 44.0 percent of those with data on the spread of disease (563 patients) had distant metastasis, as compared with 35.1 percent of 5371 control patients with data on spread (prevalence ratio, 1.26; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.40). In the group with cancer at the time of venous thromboembolism, the one-year survival rate was 12 percent, as compared with 36 percent in the control group (P<0.001), and the mortality ratio for the entire follow-up period was 2.20 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.05 to 2.40). Patients in whom cancer was diagnosed within one year after an episode of venous thromboembolism had a slightly increased risk of distant metastasis at the time of the diagnosis (prevalence ratio, 1.23 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.40]) and a relatively low rate of survival at one year (38 percent, vs. 47 percent in the control group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer diagnosed at the same time as or within one year after an episode of venous thromboembolism is associated with an advanced stage of cancer and a poor prognosis.

Autophagy is a core molecular pathway for the preservation of cellular and organismal homeostasis. Pharmacological and genetic interventions impairing autophagy responses promote or aggravate disease in a plethora of experimental models. Consistently, mutations in autophagy-related processes cause severe human pathologies. Here, we review and discuss preclinical data linking autophagy dysfunction to the pathogenesis of major human disorders including cancer as well as cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, metabolic, pulmonary, renal, infectious, musculoskeletal, and ocular disorders.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival varies widely between countries. The CONCORD study provides survival estimates for 1.9 million adults (aged 15-99 years) diagnosed with a first, primary, invasive cancer of the breast (women), colon, rectum, or prostate during 1990-94 and followed up to 1999, by use of individual tumour records from 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries on five continents. This is, to our knowledge, the first worldwide analysis of cancer survival, with standard quality-control procedures and identical analytic methods for all datasets. METHODS: To compensate for wide international differences in general population (background) mortality by age, sex, country, region, calendar period, and (in the USA) ethnic origin, we estimated relative survival, the ratio of survival noted in the patients with cancer, and the survival that would have been expected had they been subject only to the background mortality rates. 2800 life tables were constructed. Survival estimates were also adjusted for differences in the age structure of populations of patients with cancer. FINDINGS: Global variation in cancer survival was very wide. 5-year relative survival for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer was generally higher in North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe, and lower in Algeria, Brazil, and eastern Europe. CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population, four-fold more than previously available. Cancer survival in black men and women was systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women in all 16 states and six metropolitan areas included. Relative survival for all ethnicities combined was 2-4% lower in states covered by NPCR than in areas covered by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-standardised relative survival by use of the appropriate race-specific and state-specific life tables was up to 2% lower for breast cancer and up to 5% lower for prostate cancer than with the census-derived national life tables used by the SEER Program. These differences in population coverage and analytical method have both contributed to the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now. INTERPRETATION: Until now, direct comparisons of cancer survival between high-income and low-income countries have not generally been available. The information provided here might therefore be a useful stimulus for change. The findings should eventually facilitate joint assessment of international trends in incidence, survival, and mortality as indicators of cancer control.

BACKGROUND: The investigational 9-valent viruslike particle vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) includes the HPV types in the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine (6, 11, 16, and 18) and five additional oncogenic types (31, 33, 45, 52, and 58). Here we present the results of a study of the efficacy and immunogenicity of the 9vHPV vaccine in women 16 to 26 years of age. METHODS: We performed a randomized, international, double-blind, phase 2b-3 study of the 9vHPV vaccine in 14,215 women. Participants received the 9vHPV vaccine or the qHPV vaccine in a series of three intramuscular injections on day 1 and at months 2 and 6. Serum was collected for analysis of antibody responses. Swabs of labial, vulvar, perineal, perianal, endocervical, and ectocervical tissue were obtained and used for HPV DNA testing, and liquid-based cytologic testing (Papanicolaou testing) was performed regularly. Tissue obtained by means of biopsy or as part of definitive therapy (including a loop electrosurgical excision procedure and conization) was tested for HPV. RESULTS: The rate of high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal disease irrespective of HPV type (i.e., disease caused by HPV types included in the 9vHPV vaccine and those not included) in the modified intention-to-treat population (which included participants with and those without prevalent infection or disease) was 14.0 per 1000 person-years in both vaccine groups. The rate of high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal disease related to HPV-31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in a prespecified per-protocol efficacy population (susceptible population) was 0.1 per 1000 person-years in the 9vHPV group and 1.6 per 1000 person-years in the qHPV group (efficacy of the 9vHPV vaccine, 96.7%; 95% confidence interval, 80.9 to 99.8). Antibody responses to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 were noninferior to those generated by the qHPV vaccine. Adverse events related to injection site were more common in the 9vHPV group than in the qHPV group. CONCLUSIONS: The 9vHPV vaccine prevented infection and disease related to HPV-31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in a susceptible population and generated an antibody response to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 that was noninferior to that generated by the qHPV vaccine. The 9vHPV vaccine did not prevent infection and disease related to HPV types beyond the nine types covered by the vaccine. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00543543).

Lysosomal hydrolases participate in the digestion of endocytosed and autophagocytosed material inside the lysosomal/autolysosomal compartment in acute cell death when released into the cytosol and in cancer progression following their release into the extracellular space. Lysosomal alterations are common in cancer cells. The increased expression and altered trafficking of lysosomal enzymes participates in tissue invasion, angiogenesis and sensitization to the lysosomal death pathway. But lysosomal heat-shock protein 70 locally prevents lysosomal-membrane permeabilization. Similarly, alterations in the autophagic compartment are linked to carcinogenesis and resistance to chemotherapy. Targeting these pathways might constitute a novel approach to cancer therapy.

Land Use Regression (LUR) models have been used increasingly for modeling small-scale spatial variation in air pollution concentrations and estimating individual exposure for participants of cohort studies. Within the ESCAPE project, concentrations of PM(2.5), PM(2.5) absorbance, PM(10), and PM(coarse) were measured in 20 European study areas at 20 sites per area. GIS-derived predictor variables (e.g., traffic intensity, population, and land-use) were evaluated to model spatial variation of annual average concentrations for each study area. The median model explained variance (R(2)) was 71% for PM(2.5) (range across study areas 35-94%). Model R(2) was higher for PM(2.5) absorbance (median 89%, range 56-97%) and lower for PM(coarse) (median 68%, range 32- 81%). Models included between two and five predictor variables, with various traffic indicators as the most common predictors. Lower R(2) was related to small concentration variability or limited availability of predictor variables, especially traffic intensity. Cross validation R(2) results were on average 8-11% lower than model R(2). Careful selection of monitoring sites, examination of influential observations and skewed variable distributions were essential for developing stable LUR models. The final LUR models are used to estimate air pollution concentrations at the home addresses of participants in the health studies involved in ESCAPE.

The human heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) family contains at least eight homologous chaperone proteins. Endoplasmatic reticulum and mitochondria have their specific Hsp70 proteins, whereas the remaining six family members reside mainly in the cytosol and nucleus. The requirement for multiple highly homologous although different Hsp70 proteins is still far from clear, but their individual and tissue-specific expression suggests that they are assigned distinct biological tasks. This concept is supported by the fact that mice knockout for different Hsp70 genes display remarkably discrete phenotypes. Moreover, emerging data suggest that individual Hsp70 proteins can bring about non-overlapping and chaperone-independent functions essential for growth and survival of cancer cells. This review summarizes our present knowledge of the individual members of human Hsp70 family and elaborate on the functional differences between the cytosolic/nuclear representatives.

BACKGROUND: Low-risk limits recommended for alcohol consumption vary substantially across different national guidelines. To define thresholds associated with lowest risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease, we studied individual-participant data from 599 912 current drinkers without previous cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We did a combined analysis of individual-participant data from three large-scale data sources in 19 high-income countries (the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, EPIC-CVD, and the UK Biobank). We characterised dose-response associations and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) per 100 g per week of alcohol (12·5 units per week) across 83 prospective studies, adjusting at least for study or centre, age, sex, smoking, and diabetes. To be eligible for the analysis, participants had to have information recorded about their alcohol consumption amount and status (ie, non-drinker vs current drinker), plus age, sex, history of diabetes and smoking status, at least 1 year of follow-up after baseline, and no baseline history of cardiovascular disease. The main analyses focused on current drinkers, whose baseline alcohol consumption was categorised into eight predefined groups according to the amount in grams consumed per week. We assessed alcohol consumption in relation to all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular disease, and several cardiovascular disease subtypes. We corrected HRs for estimated long-term variability in alcohol consumption using 152 640 serial alcohol assessments obtained some years apart (median interval 5·6 years [5th-95th percentile 1·04-13·5]) from 71 011 participants from 37 studies. FINDINGS: In the 599 912 current drinkers included in the analysis, we recorded 40 310 deaths and 39 018 incident cardiovascular disease events during 5·4 million person-years of follow-up. For all-cause mortality, we recorded a positive and curvilinear association with the level of alcohol consumption, with the minimum mortality risk around or below 100 g per week. Alcohol consumption was roughly linearly associated with a higher risk of stroke (HR per 100 g per week higher consumption 1·14, 95% CI, 1·10-1·17), coronary disease excluding myocardial infarction (1·06, 1·00-1·11), heart failure (1·09, 1·03-1·15), fatal hypertensive disease (1·24, 1·15-1·33); and fatal aortic aneurysm (1·15, 1·03-1·28). By contrast, increased alcohol consumption was log-linearly associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0·94, 0·91-0·97). In comparison to those who reported drinking >0-≤100 g per week, those who reported drinking >100-≤200 g per week, >200-≤350 g per week, or >350 g per week had lower life expectancy at age 40 years of approximately 6 months, 1-2 years, or 4-5 years, respectively. INTERPRETATION: In current drinkers of alcohol in high-income countries, the threshold for lowest risk of all-cause mortality was about 100 g/week. For cardiovascular disease subtypes other than myocardial infarction, there were no clear risk thresholds below which lower alcohol consumption stopped being associated with lower disease risk. These data support limits for alcohol consumption that are lower than those recommended in most current guidelines. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, European Union Framework 7, and European Research Council.

BACKGROUND: Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This determination was based on the evidence regarding the relationship of PM2.5 and PM10 to lung cancer risk; however, the IARC evaluation did not include a quantitative summary of the evidence. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to provide a systematic review and quantitative summary of the evidence regarding the relationship between PM and lung cancer. METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses of studies examining the relationship of exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 with lung cancer incidence and mortality. In total, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria and provided the information necessary to estimate the change in lung cancer risk per 10-μg/m3 increase in exposure to PM. We used random-effects analyses to allow between-study variability to contribute to meta-estimates. RESULTS: The meta-relative risk for lung cancer associated with PM2.5 was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.14). The meta-relative risk of lung cancer associated with PM10 was similar, but less precise: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.17). Estimates were robust to restriction to studies that considered potential confounders, as well as subanalyses by exposure assessment method. Analyses by smoking status showed that lung cancer risk associated with PM2.5 was greatest for former smokers [1.44 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.22)], followed by never-smokers [1.18 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.39)], and then current smokers [1.06 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.15)]. In addition, meta-estimates for adenocarcinoma associated with PM2.5 and PM10 were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.83) and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.63), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of these analyses, and the decision of the IARC Working Group to classify PM and outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (Group 1), further justify efforts to reduce exposures to air pollutants that can arise from many sources.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer; however, whether this risk extends to all invasive histological subtypes or borderline tumours is not clear. We undertook an international collaborative study to assess the association between endometriosis and histological subtypes of ovarian cancer. METHODS: Data from 13 ovarian cancer case-control studies, which were part of the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, were pooled and logistic regression analyses were undertaken to assess the association between self-reported endometriosis and risk of ovarian cancer. Analyses of invasive cases were done with respect to histological subtypes, grade, and stage, and analyses of borderline tumours by histological subtype. Age, ethnic origin, study site, parity, and duration of oral contraceptive use were included in all analytical models. FINDINGS: 13 226 controls and 7911 women with invasive ovarian cancer were included in this analysis. 818 and 738, respectively, reported a history of endometriosis. 1907 women with borderline ovarian cancer were also included in the analysis, and 168 of these reported a history of endometriosis. Self-reported endometriosis was associated with a significantly increased risk of clear-cell (136 [20·2%] of 674 cases vs 818 [6·2%] of 13 226 controls, odds ratio 3·05, 95% CI 2·43-3·84, p<0·0001), low-grade serous (31 [9·2%] of 336 cases, 2·11, 1·39-3·20, p<0·0001), and endometrioid invasive ovarian cancers (169 [13·9%] of 1220 cases, 2·04, 1·67-2·48, p<0·0001). No association was noted between endometriosis and risk of mucinous (31 [6·0%] of 516 cases, 1·02, 0·69-1·50, p=0·93) or high-grade serous invasive ovarian cancer (261 [7·1%] of 3659 cases, 1·13, 0·97-1·32, p=0·13), or borderline tumours of either subtype (serous 103 [9·0%] of 1140 cases, 1·20, 0·95-1·52, p=0·12, and mucinous 65 [8·5%] of 767 cases, 1·12, 0·84-1·48, p=0·45). INTERPRETATION: Clinicians should be aware of the increased risk of specific subtypes of ovarian cancer in women with endometriosis. Future efforts should focus on understanding the mechanisms that might lead to malignant transformation of endometriosis so as to help identify subsets of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, National Institutes of Health, California Cancer Research Program, California Department of Health Services, Lon V Smith Foundation, European Community's Seventh Framework Programme, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany, Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research, German Cancer Research Centre, Eve Appeal, Oak Foundation, UK National Institute of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Cancer Council Tasmania, Cancer Foundation of Western Australia, Mermaid 1, Danish Cancer Society, and Roswell Park Alliance Foundation.

BACKGROUND: Defective cellular transport processes can lead to aberrant accumulation of trace elements, iron, small molecules and hormones in the cell, which in turn may promote the formation of reactive oxygen species, promoting DNA damage and aberrant expression of key regulatory cancer genes. As DNA damage and uncontrolled proliferation are hallmarks of cancer, including epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), we hypothesized that inherited variation in the cellular transport genes contributes to EOC risk. METHODS: In total, DNA samples were obtained from 14,525 case subjects with invasive EOC and from 23,447 controls from 43 sites in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC). Two hundred seventy nine SNPs, representing 131 genes, were genotyped using an Illumina Infinium iSelect BeadChip as part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS). SNP analyses were conducted using unconditional logistic regression under a log-additive model, and the FDR q<0.2 was applied to adjust for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The most significant evidence of an association for all invasive cancers combined and for the serous subtype was observed for SNP rs17216603 in the iron transporter gene HEPH (invasive: OR = 0.85, P = 0.00026; serous: OR = 0.81, P = 0.00020); this SNP was also associated with the borderline/low malignant potential (LMP) tumors (P = 0.021). Other genes significantly associated with EOC histological subtypes (p<0.05) included the UGT1A (endometrioid), SLC25A45 (mucinous), SLC39A11 (low malignant potential), and SERPINA7 (clear cell carcinoma). In addition, 1785 SNPs in six genes (HEPH, MGST1, SERPINA, SLC25A45, SLC39A11 and UGT1A) were imputed from the 1000 Genomes Project and examined for association with INV EOC in white-European subjects. The most significant imputed SNP was rs117729793 in SLC39A11 (per allele, OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.5-4.35, p = 5.66x10-4). CONCLUSION: These results, generated on a large cohort of women, revealed associations between inherited cellular transport gene variants and risk of EOC histologic subtypes.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that high red meat intake is associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. High fish intake may be associated with a decreased risk, but the existing evidence is less convincing. METHODS: We prospectively followed 478 040 men and women from 10 European countries who were free of cancer at enrollment between 1992 and 1998. Information on diet and lifestyle was collected at baseline. After a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 1329 incident colorectal cancers were documented. We examined the relationship between intakes of red and processed meat, poultry, and fish and colorectal cancer risk using a proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, energy (nonfat and fat sources), height, weight, work-related physical activity, smoking status, dietary fiber and folate, and alcohol consumption, stratified by center. A calibration substudy based on 36 994 subjects was used to correct hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for diet measurement errors. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer risk was positively associated with intake of red and processed meat (highest [>160 g/day] versus lowest [<20 g/day] intake, HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.88; Ptrend = .03) and inversely associated with intake of fish (>80 g/day versus <10 g/day, HR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.54 to 0.88; Ptrend<.001), but was not related to poultry intake. Correcting for measurement error strengthened the associations between colorectal cancer and red and processed meat intake (per 100-g increase HR = 1.25, 95% CI =1.09 to 1.41, Ptrend = .001 and HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.02, Ptrend = .001 before and after calibration, respectively) and for fish (per 100 g increase HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.87, Ptrend<.001 and HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.77, Ptrend = .003; before and after correction, respectively). In this study population, the absolute risk of development of colorectal cancer within 10 years for a study subject aged 50 years was 1.71% for the highest category of red and processed meat intake and 1.28% for the lowest category of intake and was 1.86% for subjects in the lowest category of fish intake and 1.28% for subjects in the highest category of fish intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that colorectal cancer risk is positively associated with high consumption of red and processed meat and support an inverse association with fish intake.

BACKGROUND: Although second primary cancers are a leading cause of death among men with testicular cancer, few studies have quantified risks among long-term survivors. METHODS: Within 14 population-based tumor registries in Europe and North America (1943-2001), we identified 40,576 1-year survivors of testicular cancer and ascertained data on any new incident solid tumors among these patients. We used Poisson regression analysis to model relative risks (RRs) and excess absolute risks (EARs) of second solid cancers. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 2,285 second solid cancers were reported in the cohort. The relative risk and EAR decreased with increasing age at testicular cancer diagnosis (P < .001); the EAR increased with attained age (P < .001) but the excess RR decreased. Among 10-year survivors diagnosed with testicular cancer at age 35 years, the risk of developing a second solid tumor was increased (RR = 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8 to 2.1). Risk remained statistically significantly elevated for 35 years (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.0; P < .001). We observed statistically significantly elevated risks, for the first time, for cancers of the pleura (malignant mesothelioma; RR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.7 to 5.9) and esophagus (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.6). Cancers of the lung (RR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.7), colon (RR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.7 to 2.5), bladder (RR = 2.7, 95% CI = 2.2 to 3.1), pancreas (RR = 3.6, 95% CI = 2.8 to 4.6), and stomach (RR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2 to 4.8) accounted for almost 60% of the total excess. Overall patterns were similar for seminoma and nonseminoma patients, with lower risks observed for nonseminoma patients treated after 1975. Statistically significantly increased risks of solid cancers were observed among patients treated with radiotherapy alone (RR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.2), chemotherapy alone (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3 to 2.5), and both (RR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.9 to 4.2). For patients diagnosed with seminomas or nonseminomatous tumors at age 35 years, cumulative risks of solid cancer 40 years later (i.e., to age 75 years) were 36% and 31%, respectively, compared with 23% for the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Testicular cancer survivors are at statistically significantly increased risk of solid tumors for at least 35 years after treatment. Young patients may experience high levels of risk as they reach older ages. The statistically significantly increased risk of malignant mesothelioma in testicular cancer survivors has, to our knowledge, not been observed previously in a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy.