Search

Abstract Background Patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) seen by a gastroenterologist often utilize medications that may alter intestinal homeostasis. The question arises whether exposure to these drugs is associated with the development of IBS symptoms. Aim of this study was therefore to assess the use of PPIs and NSAIDs in patients with IBS versus controls. Methods Cases of IBS from the last 5 years were reviewed. All patients having had at least one prescription for a particular drug (PPIs, NSAIDs, SSRIs, diuretics, ACE inhibitors) in the 6 months prior to the time of initial symptom onset were considered exposed. The control group consisted of individuals randomly selected from the general population. Results 287 cases of IBS were retrieved for analysis together with 287 age and sex-matched controls. Exposure to PPIs and NSAIDs was significantly higher in IBS patients, whereas no association between ACE inhibitor use and IBS was found. PPIs were not significantly associated when excluding patients with gastrointestinal reflux disease or functional dyspepsia. Exposure to SSRIs was also positively associated with IBS, but only when patients with psychiatric comorbidity were included in the analyses. Conclusions Medications that may alter intestinal homeostasis such as NSAIDs and PPIs were more frequently used in IBS patients compared to controls. This association might be relevant for everyday clinical practice, but it is remains to be elucidated whether this association is of etiological nature.

Background: In the absence of prognostic biomarkers, most patients with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (eTNBC) are treated with combination chemotherapy. The identification of biomarkers to select patients for whom treatment de-escalation or escalation could be considered remains an unmet need. We evaluated the prognostic value of histopathologic traits in a unique cohort of young, (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy-naïve patients with early-stage (stage I or II), node-negative TNBC and long-term follow-up, in relation to stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) for which the prognostic value was recently reported., Materials and Methods: We studied all 485 patients with node-negative eTNBC from the population-based PARADIGM cohort which selected women aged <40 years diagnosed between 1989 and 2000. None of the patients had received (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy according to standard practice at the time. Associations between histopathologic traits and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) were analyzed with Cox proportional hazard models., Results: With a median follow-up of 20.0 years, an independent prognostic value for BCSS was observed for lymphovascular invasion (LVI) [adjusted (adj.) hazard ratio (HR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-3.69], fibrotic focus (adj. HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.09-2.37) and sTILs (per 10% increment adj. HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.82). In the sTILs <30% subgroup, the presence of LVI resulted in a higher cumulative incidence of breast cancer death (at 20 years, 58%; 95% CI 41% to 72%) compared with when LVI was absent (at 20 years, 32%; 95% CI 26% to 39%). In the ≥75% sTILs subgroup, the presence of LVI might be associated with poor survival (HR 11.45, 95% CI 0.71-182.36, two deaths). We confirm the lack of prognostic value of androgen receptor expression and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 -low status., Conclusions: sTILs, LVI and fibrotic focus provide independent prognostic information in young women with node-negative eTNBC. Our results are of importance for the selection of patients for de-escalation and escalation trials., Competing Interests: Disclosure PJvD has advisory relationships with Paige, Pantarei and Samantree, paid to the institution, and research grants paid to the institute from Pfizer. NS received institutional research funding from Pfizer. ZV has a consulting role for Roche. CHMvD received institutional research funding from AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo. SMW has a consulting role for Roche, and received institutional research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca/Merck and Amgen. SMW has a consulting role for IDDI, Sensorion, Biophytis, Servier, Yuhan, Amaris Consulting and Roche. JW received institutional research funding from Cancer Research UK and KWF Dutch Cancer Society. AR has a consulting role for MSD Oncology, Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer. SCL reports grants from ZonMw and A Sister’s Hope during the conduct of the study; has been an advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Cergentis, IBM, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and Roche; and received institutional research grants from Agendia, AstraZeneca, Eurocept-pharmaceuticals and Merck and Pfizer. In addition, SCL received institutional research grants and institutional non-financial support from Agendia, Genentech, Novartis, Roche, Tesaro and Immunomedics and other institutional support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Cergentis, Daiichi Sankyo, IBM and Bayer outside the submitted work. MK is an advisory board member and/or received speakers’ fee for/from Alderaan, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Domain Therapeutics, Gilead, Roche, Medscape, MSD and AZ/Daiichi and received institutional research support from AstraZeneca/Daiichi, BMS and Roche outside the submitted work. RS reports non-financial support from Merck and BMS, research support from Merck, Puma Biotechnology and Roche, and personal fees from Roche, BMS and Exact Sciences for advisory boards. IRK received research grants from Novartis and Gilead. RHTK is an advisory board member for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre Sante, Sanofi and Servier. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior randomised controlled trials on adjuvant hormonal therapy included HER2 any patients; however, a differential effect of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) versus tamoxifen (TAM) may have been missed in ER+/HER2+ patients that comprise 7-15% of all breast cancer patients. In addition, a woman's hormonal microenvironment may influence sensitivity to TAM and AIs in the adjuvant setting, which changes during menopausal transition, a process that takes years. We studied the efficacy of AIs versus TAM in ER+/HER2+ breast cancer patients grouped by age at diagnosis as a proxy for menopausal status using treatment and outcome data from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR)., Patients and Methods: All women diagnosed between 2005 and 2007 with endocrine-treated, T any N any M 0 , ER+/HER2+ breast cancer were identified through the NCR (n = 1155). Patients were divided by age at diagnosis: premenopausal (≤45 years; n = 326), perimenopausal (4555 years; n = 525). A time-dependent variable, indicating whether AI or TAM was received for >50% of endocrine treatment duration, was applied to subdivide groups by predominant treatment received. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and Cox regression. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted for chemotherapy, trastuzumab, age at diagnosis, N-status, grade, pT-stage and ovarian ablation., Results: During follow-up, 237 recurrences and 182 deaths occurred. Perimenopausal women derived significant RFS and OS benefit from AI compared with TAM, HR 0.47 (95% CI 0.25-0.91; P = 0.03) and HR 0.37 (95% CI 0.18-0.79; P = 0.01), respectively, whereas premenopausal women derived no benefit from AI compared with TAM. Treatment effects differed significantly between these age groups (interaction P = 0.03 and P = 0.02, respectively). Among postmenopausal women a small but non-significant AI benefit was observed., Conclusion: AI treatment, preferably without any TAM treatment, was associated with the best RFS and OS outcome in ER+/HER2+ perimenopausal breast cancer patients., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Tamoxifen, a small-molecule antagonist of the transcription factor estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) used to treat breast cancer, increases risks of endometrial cancer. However, no parallels of ERα transcriptional action in breast and endometrial tumors have been found that might explain this effect. In this study, we addressed this issue with a genome-wide assessment of ERα-chromatin interactions in surgical specimens obtained from patients with tamoxifen-associated endometrial cancer. ERα was found at active enhancers in endometrial cancer cells as marked by the presence of RNA polymerase II and the histone marker H3K27Ac. These ERα binding sites were highly conserved between breast and endometrial cancer and enriched in binding motifs for the transcription factor FOXA1, which displayed substantial overlap with ERα binding sites proximal to genes involved in classical ERα target genes. Multifactorial ChIP-seq data integration from the endometrial cancer cell line Ishikawa illustrated a functional genomic network involving ERα and FOXA1 together with the enhancer-enriched transcriptional regulators p300, FOXM1, TEAD4, FNFIC, CEBP8, and TCF12. Immunohistochemical analysis of 230 primary endometrial tumor specimens showed that lack of FOXA1 and ERα expression was associated with a longer interval between breast cancer and the emergence of endometrial cancer, exclusively in tamoxifen-treated patients. Our results define conserved sites for a genomic interplay between FOXA1 and ERα in breast cancer and tamoxifen-associated endometrial cancer. In addition, FOXA1 and ERα are associated with the interval time between breast cancer and endometrial cancer only in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. Cancer Res; 76(13); 3773-84. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)