Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0476089 (endometrial cancer)
 11,379 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

We report a family manifesting the cancer-family syndrome in which 11 family members had colonic carcinomas (predominantly involving the proximal colon, in the absence of polyposis), with an average age at onset of 35 years. Three women had endometrial or endocervical cancers. The kindred is notable in that its full evaluation was predicated upon the recognition of features consistent with the cancer-family syndrome in only two sisters. The ascertainment and evaluation of the kindred demonstrates the clinical utility of regarding such criteria (early cancer onset, multiple primary cancers, proximal colonic involvement) as a basis for selecting cases for more thorough family-history evaluation. Although such selection criteria are not pathognomonic for the syndrome, identification of a more extensive family cancer history sometimes enables the initiation of a highly specific cancer surveillance program. Specific attention has been given to the problems of screening patients at risk for the development of proximal colonic cancer, an important feature of the cancer-family syndrome. Innovative operative management is also indicated, such as total colectomy for initial colonic cancer, and consideration of prophylactic hysterectomy for women with colonic cancer (because of the high risk of development of endometrial carcinoma).
Dis Colon Rectum 1979 Mar
PMID:The cancer-family syndrome: a pragmatic basis for syndrome identification. 42 75

Increasing recognition of the statistical burden posed by HNPCC (5 to 6 percent of all colorectal cancer) mandates that physicians have a better understanding of the genetics, natural history, and distinction between the hereditary site-specific variant (Lynch syndrome I) and the Cancer Family Syndrome (Lynch syndrome II). The authors report detailed cancer (all sites) family histories on two prototype families with Lynch syndrome I (Family R) and Lynch syndrome II (Family N), which have been under investigation for more than two decades. Emphasis is placed on shared clinicogenetic features; namely, early age of onset of colonic cancer (approximately age 44), multiple primary colonic cancer (24 percent of cases showed metachronous colonic cancer), predominance of proximal colonic cancer location (approximately 65 percent in the proximal colon), and vertical transmission consonant with an autosomal dominantly inherited factor. An increased predilection for extracolonic cancer, particularly endometrial carcinoma, occurs in Lynch syndrome II and is the primary basis for distinction from Lynch syndrome I. Surveillance and management programs must be wholly responsive to these natural history features.
Dis Colon Rectum 1988 May
PMID:Differential diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome I and Lynch syndrome II). 336 37

A report of the history and management of colonic cancer in two brothers with Cancer Family Syndrome is presented. An analysis is made of the prevalence of colonic and endometrial cancer in this family. The risk to the progeny of affected and unaffected individuals is discussed, and recommendations for screening for early signs of cancer are offered. [Key words: Cancer, colonic, familial; Cancer Family Syndrome.
Dis Colon Rectum 1981 Oct
PMID:Report of a family with cancer family syndrome. 719 15

The purpose of our research is to compare CT-based volumetric calculations and International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU) reference-point estimates of radiation doses to the target volume, bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon in patients with carcinoma of the endometrium treated with high dose rate intracavitary Rotte 'Y' applicator brachytherapy (HDRB). Eleven patients with cancer of the endometrium were treated with CT-compatible HDR intracavitary Rotte 'Y' applicators (Nucletron) and underwent post-implant pelvic CT scans with applicators in place. All patients were treated using orthogonal radiography-based planning. The dose was prescribed to uterine point (a point located 2 cm below the center of a line drawn between the tips of the two ends of the Rotte applicator extending laterally from the tandem by half the maximum uterine width), Point A, and 0.5 cm depth along the upper 3 cm vagina. CT-images were transferred to the PLATO treatment planning system version 14.2.6 and retrospectively planned for volumetric calculations. The clinical target volume (CTV) included the entire uterus, cervix, and upper 3 cm of vagina. The volumes of organs at risk (OAR) were digitized. Dwell positions were identified and registered in both the uterine tandem for each patient. For those receiving HDRB alone, the prescribed dose was 7 Gy x 5 fractions. Patients who were treated following external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) received 4 Gy x 5 fractions. The interfraction interval was 6-8 hours. The DVHs were computed for the CTV, bladder, rectum, and sigmoid colon. To compare doses of OARs, 1.0 cc, 2.0 cc, and 5.0 cc volumes receiving the highest dose were calculated from DVHs. 3D optimization was done to improve target coverage and decrease dose to critical organs and compared with the 2D orthogonal radiograph-based plan. The mean of percentage of prescribed dose +/- S.D to 1 cc, 2 cc, and 5 cc of the OARs of interest were as follows: Rectum 44 +/- 21%, 39 +/- 18%, and 33 +/- 15%; bladder 104 +/- 36%, 91 +/- 31%, and 73.9 +/- 24%; and sigmoid 124 +/- 35%, 109 +/- 30%, and 89 +/- 25%, respectively. The corresponding dose to ICRU 38 bladder and rectal points were 98 +/- 55% and 50.5 +/- 32%, respectively. The mean dose to uterine point and point A were 99 +/- 1.7% and 98 +/- 3%, respectively. The mean CTV volume was 160 +/- 89 cc with the percentage of volume getting 100% and 90% of the dose being 62 +/- 12% and 68 +/- 12% with 2D plan versus 57 +/- 8% and 67 +/- 8.9% with 3D plan. The dose to critical organs were reduced with 3D optimization for rectum, bladder, and sigmoid by 5.6% (p = 0.04), 20.6% (p = 0.02), and 26.8% (p = 0.005), respectively. Compared to the 3-D volume dose, the prescription points overestimated the dose to the target volume. The under-dosing was because of inability of two channel applicator to cover volumes in the region of the cervix and vagina. The dose to sigmoid colon was high and attention should be given to the sigmoid dose at the time of treatment planning. 3D planning helped in reducing the dose to the critical organs without compromising target coverage. Correlations with outcome are needed to better define the role of 3D dosimetry in treatment planning.
 ...
PMID:Comparison of 2D vs. 3D dosimetry for Rotte 'Y' applicator high dose rate brachytherapy for medically inoperable endometrial cancer. 1698 95

Germline mutations in the exonuclease (proofreading) domains of 2 DNA polymerases (POLE and POLD1) have been associated with a dominantly inherited, highly penetrant syndrome of oligo adenomatous polyposis and early-age-of-diagnosis colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer. The loss of proofreading capability causes multiple mutations throughout the genome and is manifest as microsatellite-stable, chromosomal unstable cancers. This is an important addition to the range of dominantly inherited syndromes of colorectal cancer predisposition.
Dis Colon Rectum 2014 Mar
PMID:Polymerase proofreading-associated polyposis: a new, dominantly inherited syndrome of hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition. 2450 66

Non-coding RNAs occupy a significant fraction of the human genome. Their biological significance is backed up by a plethora of emerging evidence. One of the most robust approaches to demonstrate non-coding RNA's biological relevance is through their prognostic value. Using the rich gene expression data from The Cancer Genome Altas (TCGA), we designed Advanced Expression Survival Analysis (AESA), a web tool which provides several novel survival analysis approaches not offered by previous tools. In addition to the common single-gene approach, AESA computes the gene expression composite score of a set of genes for survival analysis and utilizes permutation test or cross-validation to assess the significance of log-rank statistic and the degree of over-fitting. AESA offers survival feature selection with post-selection inference and utilizes expanded TCGA clinical data including overall, disease-specific, disease-free, and progression-free survival information. Users can analyse either protein-coding or non-coding regions of the transcriptome. We demonstrated the effectiveness of AESA using several empirical examples. Our analyses showed that non-coding RNAs perform as well as messenger RNAs in predicting survival of cancer patients. These results reinforce the potential prognostic value of non-coding RNAs. AESA is developed as a module in the freely accessible analysis suite MutEx. Abbreviation: ACC: Adrenocortical Carcinoma (n = 92); BLCA: Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma (n = 412); BRCA: Breast Invasive Carcinoma (n = 1098); CESC: Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Endocervical Adenocarcinoma (n = 307); CHOL: Cholangiocarcinoma (n = 51); COAD: Colon Adenocarcinoma (n = 461); DLBC: Lymphoid Neoplasm Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (n = 58); ESCA: Oesophageal Carcinoma (n = 185); GBM: Glioblastoma Multiforme (n = 617); HNSC: Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma (n = 528); KICH: Kidney Chromophobe (n = 113); KIRC: Kidney Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma (n = 537); KIRP: Kidney Renal Papillary Cell Carcinoma (n = 291); LAML: Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (n = 200); LGG: Brain Lower Grade Glioma (n = 516); LIHC: Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma (n = 377); LUAD: Lung Adenocarcinoma (n = 585); LUSC: Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma (n = 504); MESO: Mesothelioma (n = 87); OV: Ovarian Serous Cystadenocarcinoma (n = 608) PAAD: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (n = 185); PCPG: Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma (n = 179); PRAD: Prostate Adenocarcinoma (n = 500); READ: Rectum Adenocarcinoma (n = 172); SARC: Sarcoma (n = 261); SKCM: Skin Cutaneous Melanoma (n = 470); STAD: Stomach Adenocarcinoma (n = 443); TGCT: Testicular Germ Cell Tumours (n = 150); THCA: Thyroid Carcinoma (n = 507) THYM: Thymoma (n = 124); UCEC: Uterine Corpus Endometrial Carcinoma (n = 560); UCS: Uterine Carcinosarcoma (n = 57); UVM: Uveal Melanoma (n = 80).
 ...
PMID:Advancing Pan-cancer Gene Expression Survial Analysis by Inclusion of Non-coding RNA. 3160 16