Recently, the annual ASPHO (American Society for Pediatric Hematology/Oncology) meeting brought together more than 1,100 pediatric hematologists and oncologists, including a team from the Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancers and Blood Disorders Center. Some of the delegates from Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s included:
Amy Billett, MD: president of ASPHO, director of safety and quality and a hematologist/oncologist at Dana Farber/Boston Children’s
One in 10 people in their lifetime will have a kidney stone — a small, hard deposit of mineral and acid salts that can obstruct the drainage of urine, cause intense pain and, if not treated properly, lead to long-term kidney issues. Kidney stones are relatively uncommon in children, but the number of cases over the past two decades has risen.
The treatment for kidney stones has remained the same for decades — increased fluid intake, limited sodium intake, diuretics and potassium citrate therapy. Lifestyle factors are typically blamed for kidney stones, yet twin studies suggest a genetic component. In fact, new research supports pursuing a genetic diagnosis for this common condition, especially in kids. …
A report this April rocked the scientific world: scientists in China reported editing the genomes of human embryos using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. It was a limited success: of 86 embryos injected with CRISPR/Cas9, only 71 survived and only 4 had their target gene successfully edited. The edits didn’t take in every cell, creating a mosaic pattern, and worse, unwanted DNA mutations were introduced.
“Their study should give pause to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes during [in vitro fertilization],” George Q. Daley, MD, PhD, director of the Stem Cell Transplantation Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, told The New York Times. “This is an unsafe procedure and should not be practiced at this time, and perhaps never.”
As Daley detailed last week in his excellent presentation at Harvard Medical School’s Talks@12 series, the report reignited an ethical debate around tampering with life that’s hummed around genetic and stem cell research for decades. What the Chinese report adds is the theoretical capability of not just changing your genetic makeup, but changing the DNA you pass on to your children. …
One of the immune system’s basic jobs is to tell “self” from “non-self.” Our cells carry markers that the immune system uses to recognize them as being part of us. Cells that don’t carry those markers—like bacteria and other pathogens—therefore don’t belong.
Cancer cells, however, fall into a gray area. They’re non-self, yet they also bear markers that connote self-ness—one of the reasons the immune system has a hard time “seeing” and reacting to cancer.
Can we focus the immune system’s spotlight on cancer cells? The provisional answer is yes. Research on cancer immunotherapy—treatments that spur an immune response against cancer cells—has boomed in recent years. (The journal Science recognized cancer immunotherapy as its Breakthrough of the Year in 2013.)
DIPG isn’t like most brain tumors. Rather than forming a solid mass, it weaves itself among the nerve fibers of the pons—a structure in the brain stem that controls vital functions like breathing, blood pressure and heart rate—making it impossible to biopsy. At least, that’s been the dogma.
It’s become clear that our DNA is far from identical from cell to cell and that disease-causing mutations can happen in some of our cells and not others, arising at some point after we’re conceived. These so-called somatic mutations—affecting just a percentage of cells—are subtle and easy to overlook, even with next-generation genomic sequencing. And they could be more important in neurologic and psychiatric disorders than we thought.
“There are two kinds of somatic mutations that get missed,” says Christopher Walsh, MD, PhD, chief of Genetics and Genomics at Boston Children’s Hospital. “One is mutations that are limited to specific tissues: If we do a blood test, but the mutation is only in the brain, we won’t find it. Other mutations may be in all tissues but in only a fraction of the cells—a mosaic pattern. These could be detectable through a blood test in the clinic but aren’t common enough to be easily detectable.”
That’s where deep sequencing comes in. Reporting last month in The New England Journal of Medicine, Walsh and postdoctoral fellow Saumya Jamuar, MD, used the technique in 158 patients with brain malformations of unknown genetic cause, some from Walsh’s clinic, who had symptoms such as seizures, intellectual disability and speech and language impairments. …
A good biomarker is one whose levels go up or down as a patient’s disease worsens or wanes. A great biomarker also gives key insights into disease development. A really great biomarker does both of these things and also serves as a treatment target.
In 2009, The New England Journal of Medicine reported the case of an otherwise healthy 2-year-old boy in Canada who died after surgery. He had received a codeine dose in the recommended range, but an autopsy revealed that morphine (a product of codeine metabolism) had built up to toxic levels in his blood and likely depressed his breathing. Genetic profiling revealed him to be an “ultrarapid codeine metabolizer,” due to a genetic variation in an enzyme known as CYP2D6, part of the cytochrome P-450 family.
While codeine is no longer used at Boston Children’s Hospital, it’s this kind of genetic profiling that Shannon Manzi, PharmD, would someday like to offer to all patients—before a drug is prescribed.
Not all people respond the same way to drugs. The results of randomized clinical trials—considered the gold standard for drug testing—often produce a dose range that worked for the majority of the patients in the study. They don’t take people’s individuality into account, and that individuality can dramatically affect drug efficacy and toxicity.
Adverse reactions are more common than you might think. …