Mark Liebow

Etiologic Heterogeneity Among Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Subtypes: The InterLymph Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Subtypes Project

BACKGROUND Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) comprises biologically and clinically heterogeneous subtypes. Previously, study size has limited the ability to compare and contrast the risk factor profiles among these heterogeneous subtypes. METHODS We pooled individual-level data from 17 471 NHL cases and 23 096 controls in 20 case-control studies from the International Lymphoma Epidemiology Consortium (InterLymph). We estimated the associations, measured as odds ratios, between each of 11 NHL subtypes and self-reported medical history, family history of hematologic malignancy, lifestyle factors, and occupation. We then assessed the heterogeneity of associations by evaluating the variability (Q value) of the estimated odds ratios for a given exposure among subtypes. Finally, we organized the subtypes into a hierarchical tree to identify groups that had similar risk factor profiles. Statistical significance of tree partitions was estimated by permutation-based P values (P NODE). RESULTS Risks differed statistically significantly among NHL subtypes for medical history factors (autoimmune diseases, hepatitis C virus seropositivity, eczema, and blood transfusion), family history of leukemia and multiple myeloma, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and certain occupations, whereas generally homogeneous risks among subtypes were observed for family history of NHL, recreational sun exposure, hay fever, allergy, and socioeconomic status. Overall, the greatest difference in risk factors occurred between T-cell and B-cell lymphomas (P NODE < 1.0×10(-4)), with increased risks generally restricted to T-cell lymphomas for eczema, T-cell-activating autoimmune diseases, family history of multiple myeloma, and occupation as a painter. We further observed substantial heterogeneity among B-cell lymphomas (P NODE < 1.0×10(-4)). Increased risks for B-cell-activating autoimmune disease and hepatitis C virus seropositivity and decreased risks for alcohol consumption and occupation as a teacher generally were restricted to marginal zone lymphoma, Burkitt/Burkitt-like lymphoma/leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and/or lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia. CONCLUSIONS Using a novel approach to investigate etiologic heterogeneity among NHL subtypes, we identified risk factors that were common among subtypes as well as risk factors that appeared to be distinct among individual or a few subtypes, suggesting both subtype-specific and shared underlying mechanisms. Further research is needed to test putative mechanisms, investigate other risk factors (eg, other infections, environmental exposures, and diet), and evaluate potential joint effects with genetic susceptibility.

The Mayo Clinic Biobank: A Building Block for Individualized Medicine

OBJECTIVE To report the design and implementation of the first 3 years of enrollment of the Mayo Clinic Biobank. PATIENTS AND METHODS Preparations for this biobank began with a 4-day Deliberative Community Engagement with local residents to obtain community input into the design and governance of the biobank. Recruitment, which began in April 2009, is ongoing, with a target goal of 50,000. Any Mayo Clinic patient who is 18 years or older, able to consent, and a US resident is eligible to participate. Each participant completes a health history questionnaire, provides a blood sample, and allows access to existing tissue specimens and all data from their Mayo Clinic electronic medical record. A community advisory board provides ongoing advice and guidance on complex decisions. RESULTS After 3 years of recruitment, 21,736 individuals have enrolled. Fifty-eight percent (12,498) of participants are female and 95% (20,541) of European ancestry. Median participant age is 62 years. Seventy-four percent (16,171) live in Minnesota, with 42% (9157) from Olmsted County, where the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, is located. The 5 most commonly self-reported conditions are hyperlipidemia (8979, 41%), hypertension (8174, 38%), osteoarthritis (6448, 30%), any cancer (6224, 29%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (5669, 26%). Among patients with self-reported cancer, the 5 most common types are nonmelanoma skin cancer (2950, 14%), prostate cancer (1107, 12% in men), breast cancer (941, 4%), melanoma (692, 3%), and cervical cancer (240, 2% in women). Fifty-six percent (12,115) of participants have at least 15 years of electronic medical record history. To date, more than 60 projects and more than 69,000 samples have been approved for use. CONCLUSION The Mayo Clinic Biobank has quickly been established as a valuable resource for researchers.

Consortium analysis of 7 candidate SNPs for ovarian cancer.

The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium selected 7 candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), for which there is evidence from previous studies of an association with variation in ovarian cancer or breast cancer risks. The SNPs selected for analysis were F31I (rs2273535) in AURKA, N372H (rs144848) in BRCA2, rs2854344 in intron 17 of RB1, rs2811712 5′ flanking CDKN2A, rs523349 in the 3′ UTR of SRD5A2, D302H (rs1045485) in CASP8 and L10P (rs1982073) in TGFB1. Fourteen studies genotyped 4,624 invasive epithelial ovarian cancer cases and 8,113 controls of white non‐Hispanic origin. A marginally significant association was found for RB1 when all studies were included [ordinal odds ratio (OR) 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.00) p = 0.041 and dominant OR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76–0.98) p = 0.025]; when the studies that originally suggested an association were excluded, the result was suggestive although no longer statistically significant (ordinal OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79–1.06). This SNP has also been shown to have an association with decreased risk in breast cancer. There was a suggestion of an association for AURKA, when one study that caused significant study heterogeneity was excluded [ordinal OR 1.10 (95% CI 1.01–1.20) p = 0.027; dominant OR 1.12 (95% CI 1.01–1.24) p = 0.03]. The other 5 SNPs in BRCA2, CDKN2A, SRD5A2, CASP8 and TGFB1 showed no association with ovarian cancer risk; given the large sample size, these results can also be considered to be informative. These null results for SNPs identified from relatively large initial studies shows the importance of replicating associations by a consortium approach.

Cost-Minimization Analysis of Alternative Diagnostic Approaches in a Modeled Patient With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Subcarinal Lymphadenopathy

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the costs of alternative diagnostic evaluations of enlarged subcarinal lymph nodes (SLNs) in modeled patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS A cost-minimization model was used to compare 5 diagnostic approaches in the evaluation of enlarged SLNs in modeled patients with NSCLC. Values for the test performance characteristics and prevalence of malignancy in patients with SLN were obtained from the medical literature. The target population was adult patients known or suspected to have NSCLC with SLNs with a short axis length of at least 10 mm on thoracic computed tomography (CT). RESULTS The lowest-cost diagnostic work-up was by initial evaluation with endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) biopsy (

Medicare Financing of Graduate Medical Education: Intractable Problems, Elusive Solutions

11,490 per patient) compared with mediastinoscopy (with biopsy) (

Genetic variation in tumor necrosis factor and the nuclear factor-kappaB canonical pathway and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

13,658), transbronchial FNA biopsy (

Estrogen Bioactivation, Genetic Polymorphisms, and Ovarian Cancer

11,963), CT-guided FNA biopsy (

Genetic Variation in B-Cell–Activating Factor Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Developing B-Cell Non–Hodgkin Lymphoma

13,027), and positron emission tomography (

Association of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Glycosylation Genes with Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

12,887). The results were sensitive to rate of SLN metastases and EUS FNA sensitivity. The EUS FNA biopsy remained least costly if the probability of SLN metastases exceeded 24% or EUS FNA sensitivity was higher than 76%. Primary mediastinoscopy was the most economical if not. CONCLUSIONS Which testing strategy is least costly for SLN evaluation in a modeled patient with NSCLC may be determined by the pretest probability of nodal metastases. Use of EUS FNA biopsy minimizes the cost of diagnostic evaluation in most cases.

The introduction of a diagnostic decision support system (DXplain™) into the workflow of a teaching hospital service can decrease the cost of service for diagnostically challenging Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs)

The past decade has seen ongoing debate regarding federal support of graduate medical education, with numerous proposals for reform. Several critical problems with the current mechanism are evident on reviewing graduate medical education (GME) funding issues from the perspectives of key stakeholders. These problems include the following: substantial interinstitutional and interspecialty variations in per-resident payment amounts; teaching costs that have not been recalibrated since 1983; no consistent control by physician educators over direct medical education (DME) funds; and institutional DME payments unrelated to actual expenditures for resident education or to program outcomes. None of the current GME reform proposals adequately address all of these issues. Accordingly, we recommend several fundamental changes in Medicare GME support. We propose a re-analysis of the true direct costs of resident training (with appropriate adjustment for local market factors) to rectify the myriad problems with per-resident payments. We propose that Medicare DME funds go to the physician organization providing resident instruction, keeping DME payments separate from the operating revenues of teaching hospitals. To ensure financial accountability, we propose that institutions must maintain budgets and report expenditures for each GME program. To establish educational accountability, Residency Review Committees should establish objective, annually measurable standards for GME program performance; programs that consistently fail to meet these minimum standards should lose discretion over GME funds. These reforms will solve several long-standing, vexing problems in Medicare GME funding, but will also uncover the extent of undersupport of GME by most other health care payers. Ultimately, successful reform of GME financing will require “all-payer” support.