Although faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has a well-established role in the treatment of recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), its widespread dissemination is limited by several obstacles, including lack of dedicated centres, difficulties with donor recruitment and complexities related to regulation and safety monitoring. Given the considerable burden of CDI on global healthcare systems, FMT should be widely available to most centres.Stool banks may guarantee reliable, timely and equitable access to FMT for patients and a traceable workflow that ensures safety and quality of procedures. In this consensus project, FMT experts from Europe, North America and Australia gathered and released statements on the following issues related to the stool banking: general principles, objectives and organisation of the stool bank; selection and screening of donors; collection, preparation and storage of faeces; services and clients; registries, monitoring of outcomes and ethical issues; and the evolving role of FMT in clinical practice,Consensus on each statement was achieved through a Delphi process and then in a plenary face-to-face meeting. For each key issue, the best available evidence was assessed, with the aim of providing guidance for the development of stool banks in order to promote accessibility to FMT in clinical practice.

We performed a multistage genome-wide association study (GWAS) including 7,683 individuals with pancreatic cancer and 14,397 controls of European descent. Four new loci reached genome-wide significance: rs6971499 at 7q32.3 (LINC-PINT; per-allele odds ratio [OR] = 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.74–0.84; P = 3.0×10−12), rs7190458 at 16q23.1 (BCAR1/CTRB1/CTRB2; OR = 1.46; 95% CI = 1.30–1.65; P = 1.1×10−10), rs9581943 at 13q12.2 (PDX1; OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.10–1.20; P = 2.4×10−9), and rs16986825 at 22q12.1 (ZNRF3; OR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.12–1.25; P = 1.2×10−8). An independent signal was identified in exon 2 of TERT at the established region 5p15.33 (rs2736098; OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.76–0.85; P = 9.8×10−14). We also identified a locus at 8q24.21 (rs1561927; P = 1.3×10−7) that approached genome-wide significance located 455 kb telomeric of PVT1. Our study has identified multiple new susceptibility alleles for pancreatic cancer worthy of follow-up studies.

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the developed world. Both inherited high-penetrance mutations in BRCA2 (ref. 2), ATM, PALB2 (ref. 4), BRCA1 (ref. 5), STK11 (ref. 6), CDKN2A and mismatch-repair genes and low-penetrance loci are associated with increased risk. To identify new risk loci, we performed a genome-wide association study on 9,925 pancreatic cancer cases and 11,569 controls, including 4,164 newly genotyped cases and 3,792 controls in 9 studies from North America, Central Europe and Australia. We identified three newly associated regions: 17q25.1 (LINC00673, rs11655237, odds ratio (OR) = 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.19-1.34, P = 1.42 × 10(-14)), 7p13 (SUGCT, rs17688601, OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.84-0.92, P = 1.41 × 10(-8)) and 3q29 (TP63, rs9854771, OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.85-0.93, P = 2.35 × 10(-8)). We detected significant association at 2p13.3 (ETAA1, rs1486134, OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.09-1.19, P = 3.36 × 10(-9)), a region with previous suggestive evidence in Han Chinese. We replicated previously reported associations at 9q34.2 (ABO), 13q22.1 (KLF5), 5p15.33 (TERT and CLPTM1), 13q12.2 (PDX1), 1q32.1 (NR5A2), 7q32.3 (LINC-PINT), 16q23.1 (BCAR1) and 22q12.1 (ZNRF3). Our study identifies new loci associated with pancreatic cancer risk

In 2020, 146,063 deaths due to pancreatic cancer are estimated to occur in Europe and the United States combined. To identify common susceptibility alleles, we performed the largest pancreatic cancer GWAS to date, including 9040 patients and 12,496 controls of European ancestry from the Pancreatic Cancer Cohort Consortium (PanScan) and the Pancreatic Cancer Case-Control Consortium (PanC4). Here, we find significant evidence of a novel association at rs78417682 (7p12/ TNS3 , P = 4.35 × 10 −8 ). Replication of 10 promising signals in up to 2737 patients and 4752 controls from the PANcreatic Disease ReseArch (PANDoRA) consortium yields new genome-wide significant loci: rs13303010 at 1p36.33 ( NOC2L , P = 8.36 × 10 −14 ), rs2941471 at 8q21.11 ( HNF4G , P = 6.60 × 10 −10 ), rs4795218 at 17q12 ( HNF1B , P = 1.32 × 10 −8 ), and rs1517037 at 18q21.32 ( GRP , P = 3.28 × 10 −8 ). rs78417682 is not statistically significantly associated with pancreatic cancer in PANDoRA. Expression quantitative trait locus analysis in three independent pancreatic data sets provides molecular support of NOC2L as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene.

BackgroundTimely diagnosis of cancer represents a challenging task; in particular, there is a need for reliable non-invasive screening tools that could achieve high levels of adherence at virtually no risk in population-based screening. In this review, we summarize the current evidence of exhaled breath analysis for cancer detection using standard analysis techniques and electronic nose.MethodsRelevant studies were identified searching Pubmed and Web of Science databases until April 30, 2015. Information on breath test performance, such as sensitivity and specificity, was extracted together with volatile compounds that were used to discriminate cancer patients from controls. Performance of different breath analysis techniques is provided for various cancers together with information on methodological issues, such as breath sampling protocol and validation of the results.ResultsOverall, 73 studies were included, where two-thirds of the studies were conducted on lung cancer. Good discrimination usually required a combination of multiple biomarkers, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or accuracy reached levels of 0.9 or higher in multiple studies. In 25% of the reported studies, classification models were built and validated on the same datasets. Huge variability was seen in different aspects among the studies.ConclusionsAnalyses of exhaled breath yielded promising results, although standardization of breath collection, sample storage and data handling remain critical issues. In order to foster breath analysis implementation into practice, larger studies should be implemented in true screening settings, paying particular attention to standardization in breath collection, consideration of covariates, and validation in independent population samples.