Search

Background: Although breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for breast cancer-susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, there is no current consensus on the optimal screening regimen.Methods: The authors used a computer simulation model to compare 6 annual screening strategies (film mammography [FM], digital mammography [DM], FM and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or DM and MRI contemporaneously, and alternating FM/MRI or DM/MRI at 6-month intervals) beginning at ages 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and 40 years, and 2 strategies of annual MRI with delayed alternating DM/FM versus clinical surveillance alone. Strategies were evaluated without and with mammography-induced breast cancer risk using 2 models of excess relative risk. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, publicly available databases, and calibration.Results: Without radiation risk effects, alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years provided the highest life expectancy (BRCA1, 72.52 years, BRCA2, 77.63 years). When radiation risk was included, a small proportion of diagnosed cancers was attributable to radiation exposure (BRCA1, <2%; BRCA2, <4%). With radiation risk, alternating DM/MRI at age 25 years or annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years was the most effective, depending on the radiation risk model used. Alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years also produced the highest number of false-positive screens per woman (BRCA1, 4.5 BRCA2, 8.1).Conclusions: Annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years is probably the most effective screening strategy in BRCA mutation carriers. Screening benefits, associated risks, and personal acceptance of false-positive results should be considered in choosing the optimal screening strategy for individual women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The impact of mammography screening recall on quality-of-life (QOL) has been studied in women at average risk for breast cancer, but it is unknown whether these effects differ by breast cancer risk level. We used a vignette-based survey to evaluate how women across the spectrum of breast cancer risk perceive the experience of screening recall., Methods: Women participating in mammography or breast MRI screening were recruited to complete a vignette-based survey. Using a numerical rating scale (0-100), women rated QOL for hypothetical scenarios of screening recall, both before and after benign results were known. Lifetime breast cancer risk was calculated using Gail and BRCAPRO risk models. Risk perception, trait anxiety, and breast cancer worry were assessed using validated instruments., Results: The final study cohort included 162 women at low (n = 43, 26%), intermediate (n = 66, 41%), and high-risk (n = 53, 33%). Actual breast cancer risk was not a predictor of QOL for any of the presented scenarios. Across all risk levels, QOL ratings were significantly lower for the period during diagnostic uncertainty compared to after benign results were known (p < 0.05). In multivariable regression analyses, breast cancer worry was a significant predictor of decreased QoL for all screening scenarios while awaiting results, including scenarios with non-invasive imaging alone or with biopsy. High trait anxiety and family history predicted lower QOL scores after receipt of benign test results (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Women with high trait anxiety and family history may particularly benefit from discussions about the risk of recall when choosing a screening regimen., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JML and KPL receive research support from GE Healthcare. GSG was previously a consultant for GE Healthcare until 2018., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The Salmonella type three secretion system (T3SS), encoded in the Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 (SPI1) locus, mediates the invasion of the host intestinal epithelium. SPI1 expression is dependent upon three AraC-like regulators: HilD, HilC, and RtsA. These regulators act in a complex feed-forward loop to activate each other and hilA , which encodes the activator of the T3SS structural genes. HilD has been shown to be the major integration point of most signals known to activate the expression of the SPI1 T3SS, acting as a switch to control induction of the system. HilE is a negative regulator that acts upon HilD. Here we provide genetic and biochemical data showing that HilE specifically binds to HilD but not to HilC or RtsA. This protein-protein interaction blocks the ability of HilD to bind DNA as shown by both an in vivo reporter system and an in vitro gel shift assay. HilE does not affect HilD dimerization, nor does it control the stability of the HilD protein. We also investigated the role of HilE during the infection of mice using competition assays. Although deletion of hilE does not confer a phenotype, the hilE mutation does suppress the invasion defect conferred by loss of FliZ, which acts as a positive signal controlling HilD protein activity. Together, these data suggest that HilE functions to restrict low-level HilD activity, preventing premature activation of SPI1 until positive inputs reach a threshold required to fully induce the system. IMPORTANCE Salmonella is a leading cause of gastrointestinal and systemic disease throughout the world. The SPI1 T3SS is required for Salmonella to induce inflammatory diarrhea and to gain access to underlying tissue. A complex regulatory network controls expression of SPI1 in response to numerous physiological inputs. Most of these signals impinge primarily on HilD translation or activity. The system is triggered when HilD activity crosses a threshold that allows efficient activation of its own promoter. This threshold is set by HilE, which binds to HilD to prevent the inevitable minor fluctuations in HilD activity from inappropriately activating the system. The circuit also serves as a paradigm for systems that must integrate numerous environmental parameters to control regulatory output., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.)

Unlabelled: Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium uses the Salmonella pathogenicity island 1 (SPI1) type III secretion system (T3SS) to induce inflammatory diarrhea and bacterial uptake into intestinal epithelial cells. The expression of hilA, encoding the transcriptional activator of the T3SS structural genes, is directly controlled by three AraC-like regulators, HilD, HilC, and RtsA, each of which can activate hilD, hilC, rtsA, and hilA genes, forming a complex feed-forward regulatory loop. Expression of the SPI1 genes is tightly controlled by numerous regulatory inputs to ensure proper timing in production of the T3SS apparatus. Loss of FadD, an acyl coenzyme A (acyl-CoA) synthetase required for degradation of long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs), was known to decrease hilA expression. We show that free external LCFAs repress expression of hilA independently of FadD and the LCFA degradation pathway. Genetic and biochemical evidence suggests that LCFAs act directly to block primarily HilD activity. Further analyses show that in the absence of FadD, hilA expression is downregulated due to endogenous production of free LCFAs, which are excreted into the culture medium via TolC and then transported back into the bacterial cell via FadL. A fadL mutant is more virulent than the wild-type strain in mouse oral competition assays independently of LCFA degradation, showing that, in the host, dietary LCFAs serve as a signal for proper regulation of SPI1 expression, rather than an energy source., Importance: To cause disease, Salmonella must respond to diverse environmental cues to express its invasion machinery at the appropriate location in the host intestine. We show that host intestinal free long-chain fatty acids (LCFAs) affect Salmonella invasion by reducing expression of the SPI1 type III secretion system, acting primarily via the AraC-like activator HilD. Degradation of LCFAs is not required for this regulation, showing that free LCFAs serve as a cue to proper intestinal localization to invade host epithelial cells and not as a nutrient source., (Copyright © 2016 Golubeva et al.)

Background: Current clinical guidelines recommend earlier, more intensive breast cancer screening with both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography for women with breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations. Unspecified details of screening schedules are a challenge for implementing guidelines., Methods: A Markov Monte Carlo computer model was used to simulate screening in asymptomatic women who were BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Three dual-modality strategies were compared with digital mammography (DM) alone: 1) DM and MRI alternating at 6-month intervals beginning at age 25 years (Alt25), 2) annual MRI beginning at age 25 years with alternating DM added at age 30 years (MRI25/Alt30), and 3) DM and MRI alternating at 6-month intervals beginning at age 30 years (Alt30). Primary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs (in 2010 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness (dollars per QALY gained). Additional outcomes included potential harms of screening, and lifetime costs stratified into component categories (screening and diagnosis, treatment, mortality, and patient time costs)., Results: All 3 dual-modality screening strategies increased QALYs and costs. Alt30 screening had the lowest incremental costs per additional QALY gained (BRCA1, $74,200 per QALY; BRCA2, $215,700 per QALY). False-positive test results increased substantially with dual-modality screening and occurred more frequently in BRCA2 carriers. Downstream savings in both breast cancer treatment and mortality costs were outweighed by increases in up-front screening and diagnosis costs. The results were influenced most by estimates of breast cancer risk and MRI costs., Conclusions: Alternating MRI and DM screening at 6-month intervals beginning at age 30 years was identified as a clinically effective approach to applying current guidelines, and was more cost-effective in BRCA1 gene mutation carriers compared with BRCA2 gene mutation carriers., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)