We identified an RyR2 variant associated with reduced Ca release and short-coupled torsades de pointes ventricular arrhythmia. The mechanisms of arrhythmogenesis remain unclear.

BackgroundThe pathological and clinical features of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) differ from those of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Several studies have indicated that patients with ILC have a better prognosis than those with ductal carcinoma. However, no previous study has considered the molecular subtypes and histological subtypes of ILC. We compared prognosis between IDC and classical, luminal type ILC and developed prognostic factors for early breast cancer patients with classical luminal ILC.MethodsFour thousand one hundred ten breast cancer patients were treated at the Aichi Cancer Center Hospital from 2003 to 2012. We identified 1,661 cases with luminal IDC and 105 cases with luminal classical ILC. We examined baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and prognostic factors of luminal ILC.ResultsThe prognosis of luminal ILC was significantly worse than that of luminal IDC. The rates of 5-year disease free survival (DFS) were 91.9 % and 88.4 % for patients with luminal IDC and luminal ILC, respectively (P = 0.008). The rates of 5-year overall survival (OS) were 97.6 % and 93.1 % for patients with luminal IDC and luminal ILC respectively (P = 0.030). Although we analyzed prognosis according to stratification by tumor size, luminal ILC tended to have worse DFS than luminal IDC in the large tumor group. In addition, although our analysis was performed according to matching lymph node status, luminal ILC had a significantly worse DFS and OS than luminal IDC in node-positive patients. Survival curves showed that the prognosis for ILC became worse than IDC over time. Multivariate analysis showed that ILC was an important factor related to higher risk of recurrence of luminal type breast cancer, even when tumor size, lymph node status and histological grade were considered.ConclusionsLuminal ILC had worse outcomes than luminal IDC. Consequently, different treatment approaches should be used for luminal ILC than for luminal IDC.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2275-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

on behalf of the J-RHYTHM Registry Investigators* Background--To clarify the influence of hypertension and blood pressure (BP) control on thromboembolism and major hemorrhage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a post hoc analysis of the J-RHYTHM Registry was performed.

No abstract

Background Blood pressure (BP) variability has reportedly been a risk factor for various clinical events. To clarify the influence of BP visit‐to‐visit variability on adverse events in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, a post hoc analysis of the J‐RHYTHM Registry was performed. Methods and Results Of 7406 outpatients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation from 158 institutions, 7226 (age, 69.7±9.9 years; men, 70.7%), in whom BP was measured 4 times or more (14.6±5.0 times) during the 2‐year follow‐up period or until occurrence of an event, constituted the study group. SD and coefficient of variation of BP values were calculated as BP variability. Thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all‐cause death occurred in 110 (1.5%), 121 (1.7%), and 168 (2.3%) patients, respectively. When patients were divided into quartiles of systolic BP‐SD (<8.20, 8.20–10.49, 10.50–13.19, and ≥13.20 mm Hg), hazard ratios (HRs) for all adverse events were significantly high in the highest quartile compared with the lowest quartile (HR, 2.00, 95% CI, 1.15–3.49, P =0.015 for thromboembolism; HR, 2.60, 95% CI, 1.36–4.97, P =0.004 for major hemorrhage; and HR, 1.85, 95% CI, 1.11–3.07, P =0.018 for all‐cause death) after adjusting for components of the CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score, warfarin and antiplatelet use, atrial fibrillation type, BP measurement times, and others. These findings were consistent when BP‐coefficient of variation was used instead of BP‐SD. Conclusions Systolic BP visit‐to‐visit variability was significantly associated with all adverse events in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Further studies are needed to clarify the causality between BP variability and adverse outcomes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Registration URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ ; Unique Identifier: UMIN000001569.