INTRODUCTION: Ambient air pollution is a known risk factor for adverse birth outcomes, but the role of ultrafine particles (UFPs) is not well understood. Aircraft-origin UFPs adversely affect air quality over large residential areas downwind of airports, but their reproductive health burden remains uninvestigated. OBJECTIVES: This analysis evaluated whether UFPs from jet aircraft emissions are associated with increased rates of preterm birth (PTB) among pregnant mothers living downwind of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). METHODS: This population-based study used birth records, provided by the California Department of Public Health, to ascertain birth outcomes and a novel, validated geospatial UFP dispersion model approach to estimate in utero exposures. All mothers who gave birth from 2008 to 2016 while living within 15 km of LAX were included in this analysis (N = 174,186; including 15,134 PTBs). RESULTS: In utero exposure to aircraft-origin UFPs was positively associated with PTB. The odds ratio (OR) per interquartile range (IQR) increase [9,200 particles per cubic centimeter (cc)] relative UFP exposure was 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.06]. When comparing the fourth quartile of UFP exposure to the first quartile, the OR for PTB was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.20), adjusting for maternal demographic characteristics, exposure to traffic-related air pollution, and airport-related noise. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that emissions from aircraft play an etiologic role in PTBs, independent of noise and traffic-related air pollution exposures. These findings are of public health concern because UFP exposures downwind of airfields are common and may affect large, densely populated residential areas.

Background: Poor patients often reside in neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status (SES) with high levels of airborne pollutants. They also have higher mortality from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) than those living in wealthier communities. We investigated whether living in polluted neighborhoods is associated with somatic mutations linked with lower survival rates, i.e., TP53 mutations. Methods: In a retrospective cohort of 478 patients with NSCLC treated at a comprehensive cancer center between 2015 and 2018, we used logistic regression to assess associations between individual demographic and clinical characteristics, including somatic TP53 mutation status and environmental risk factors of annual average particulate matter (PM2.5) levels, and neighborhood SES. Results: 277 patients (58%) had somatic TP53 mutations. Of those, 45% lived in neighborhoods with “moderate” Environmental Protection Agency–defined PM2.5 exposure, compared with 39% of patients without TP53 mutations. We found significant associations between living in neighborhoods with “moderate” versus “good” PM2.5 concentrations and minority population percentage [OR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–1.08]. There was a significant association between presence of TP53 mutations and PM2.5 exposure (moderate versus good: OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.02–2.72) after adjusting for patient characteristics, other environmental factors, and neighborhood-level SES. Conclusions: When controlling for individual- and neighborhood-level confounders, we find that the odds of having a TP53-mutated NSCLC are increased in areas with higher PM2.5 exposure. Impact: The link between pollution and aggressive biology may contribute to the increased burden of adverse NSCLC outcomes in individuals living in lower SES neighborhoods.

In adolescents, we found that increased, chronic exposure to NO and the mixture of pollutants from traffic sources was associated with a flattened diurnal slope of cortisol, a marker of an abnormal cortisol response which we hypothesize may be a mechanism through which air pollution may affect respiratory function and asthma in adolescents.

No abstract

Background: Given that media coverage can shape healthcare expectations, it is essential that we understand how the media frames “personalized medicine” (PM) in oncology, and whether information about unproven technologies is widely disseminated. Methods: We conducted a content analysis of 396 news reports related to cancer and PM published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2011. Two coders independently coded all the reports using a pre-defined framework. Determination of coverage of “standard” and “non-standard” therapies and tests was made by comparing the media print/broadcast date to the date of Federal Drug Administration approval or incorporation into clinical guidelines. Results: Although the term “personalized medicine” appeared in all reports, it was clearly defined only 27% of the time. Stories more frequently reported PM benefits than challenges (96% vs. 48%, p < 0.001). Commonly reported benefits included improved treatment (89%), prediction of side effects (30%), disease risk prediction (33%), and lower cost (19%). Commonly reported challenges included high cost (28%), potential for discrimination (29%), and concerns over privacy and regulation (21%). Coverage of inherited DNA testing was more common than coverage of tumor testing (79% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). Media reports of standard tests and treatments were common; however, 8% included information about non-standard technologies, such as experimental medications and gene therapy. Conclusion: Confusion about personalized cancer medicine may be exacerbated by media reports that fail to clearly define the term. While most media stories reported on standard tests and treatments, an emphasis on the benefits of PM may lead to unrealistic expectations for cancer genomic care.