Chromosomal aneuploidy is the major reason why couples opt for prenatal diagnosis. Current methods for definitive diagnosis rely on invasive procedures, such as chorionic villus sampling and amniocentesis, and are associated with a risk of fetal miscarriage. Fetal DNA has been found in maternal plasma but exists as a minor fraction among a high background of maternal DNA. Hence, quantitative perturbations caused by an aneuploid chromosome in the fetal genome to the overall representation of sequences from that chromosome in maternal plasma would be small. Even with highly precise single molecule counting methods such as digital PCR, a large number of DNA molecules and hence maternal plasma volume would need to be analyzed to achieve the necessary analytical precision. Here we reasoned that instead of using approaches that target specific gene loci, the use of a locus-independent method would greatly increase the number of target molecules from the aneuploid chromosome that could be analyzed within the same fixed volume of plasma. Hence, we used massively parallel genomic sequencing to quantify maternal plasma DNA sequences for the noninvasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21. Twenty-eight first and second trimester maternal plasma samples were tested. All 14 trisomy 21 fetuses and 14 euploid fetuses were correctly identified. Massively parallel plasma DNA sequencing represents a new approach that is potentially applicable to all pregnancies for the noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal chromosomal aneuploidies.

Circulating cell-free Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) DNA is a biomarker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. We conducted a prospective study to investigate whether EBV DNA in plasma samples would be useful to screen for early nasopharyngeal carcinoma in asymptomatic persons.

Purpose This randomized trial compared the rates of delayed xerostomia between two-dimensional radiation therapy (2DRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in the treatment of early-stage nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Patients and Methods Between November 2001 and December 2003, 60 patients with T1-2bN0-1M0 NPC were randomly assigned to receive either IMRT or 2DRT. Primary end point was incidence of observer-rated severe xerostomia at 1 year after treatment based on Radiotherapy Oncology Group /European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer late radiation morbidity scoring criteria. Parallel assessment with patient-reported outcome, stimulated parotid flow rate (SPFR), and stimulated whole saliva flow rate (SWSFR) were also made. Results At 1 year after treatment, patients in IMRT arm had lower incidence of observer-rated severe xerostomia than patients in the 2DRT arm (39.3% v 82.1%; P = .001), parallel with a higher fractional SPFR (0.90 v 0.05; P < .0001), and higher fractional SWSFR (0.41 v 0.20; P = .001). As for patient's subjective feeling, although a trend of improvement in patient-reported outcome was observed after IMRT, recovery was incomplete and there was no significant difference in patient-reported outcome between the two arms. Conclusion IMRT is superior to 2DRT in preserving parotid function and results in less severe delayed xerostomia in the treatment of early-stage NPC. Incomplete improvement in patient's subjective xerostomia with parotid-sparing IMRT reflects the need to enhance protection of other salivary glands.

Individual patient data were available for all four of the randomized trials that began before 1995, and that compared adjuvant radiotherapy vs no radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). A total of 3729 women were eligible for analysis. Radiotherapy reduced the absolute 10-year risk of any ipsilateral breast event (ie, either recurrent DCIS or invasive cancer) by 15.2% (SE 1.6%, 12.9% vs 28.1% 2 P <.00001), and it was effective regardless of the age at diagnosis, extent of breast-conserving surgery, use of tamoxifen, method of DCIS detection, margin status, focality, grade, comedonecrosis, architecture, or tumor size. The proportional reduction in ipsilateral breast events was greater in older than in younger women (2P < .0004 for difference between proportional reductions; 10-year absolute risks: 18.5% vs 29.1% at ages <50 years, 10.8% vs 27.8% at ages ≥50 years) but did not differ significantly according to any other available factor. Even for women with negative margins and small low-grade tumors, the absolute reduction in the 10-year risk of ipsilateral breast events was 18.0% (SE 5.5, 12.1% vs 30.1%, 2P = .002). After 10 years of follow-up, there was, however, no significant effect on breast cancer mortality, mortality from causes other than breast cancer, or all-cause mortality.