The James S. McDonnell Foundation was founded in 1950 by aerospace pioneer James S. McDonnell. It was established to "improve the quality of life," and does so by contributing to the generation of new knowledge through its support of research and scholarship. Originally called the McDonnell Foundation, the organization was renamed the James S. McDonnell Foundation in 1984 in honor of its founder. The foundation is based in Saint Louis, Missouri.The Foundation is a member of the Brain Tumor Funders' Collaborative, a partnership among eight private philanthropic and advocacy organizations designed to bridge the “translational gap” that prevents promising laboratory science from yielding new medical treatments. Fair market value of Foundation assets were around $609 million in 2007. Susan M. Fitzpatrick was named President beginning 2015.
10511 Background: Pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in cancer-predisposition genes influence the development of many cancer types but our understanding of cancer risks in PGV carriers remains underexplored. This study aims to further characterize the spectrum of cancers associated with PGVs and factors contributing to the development of multiple primary cancers among PGV carriers. Methods: A case-control analysis of 61,453 cancer cases and 366,709 controls in the UK Biobank (UKBB) was performed to test for the associations between risks of 43 solid tumor types and PGVs in 237 cancer predisposition genes. We evaluated each association according to the ClinGen Gene-Disease Validity framework and categorized those with moderate or less evidence as novel. An independent validation cohort of 103,321 cases 340,786 controls from All of Us, Mass General Brigham Biobank, TCGA, Memorial Sloan Kettering IMPACT, and a case-control study of ovarian cancer was used to replicate novel associations. Results: We identified 51 novel associations between solid tumor development and PGVs in the UKBB. Out of these, 32 were also significantly associated (p<0.05) in our validation cohorts (Table 1). Among PGV carriers in the UKBB, 16% had one primary malignancy and 2% had two or more. Across most PGV carriers, we observed higher risks of multiple primary cancers compared to single primary cancers. Using cox proportional hazards models, we found that PGV carriers with a personal history of cancer showed a higher hazard ratio of second cancer compared to healthy controls, particularly among those diagnosed with the first cancer earlier in life. The association between PGVs and second cancer remained significant in case-only analysis limited to cancer survivors and adjusted for primary tumor type suggesting this was not explained by shared risk factors. Conclusions: These findings expand our understanding of spectrum of cancer risks associated with predisposition genes and highlight that PGV carriers are at high risk of developing multiple primary cancers. In addition to family history, personal history of cancer should be considered for tailored cancer screening in genetically predisposed individuals. Novel associations between PGV genes and selected cancers. Shown are the odds ratio estimates from the meta-analysis of replication cohorts. Cancer Genes Odds ratio (95% CI) Breast BAP1 4.68 (2.13-10.25) BRIP1 1.63 (1.18-2.26) LZTR1 2.01 (1.56-2.6) Colorectal ATM 1.43 (1.07-1.93) BARD1 2.33 (1.28-4.26) BRCA1 1.69 (1.2-2.37) BRCA2 1.69 (1.27-2.25) FLCN 2.6 (1.17-5.74) Melanoma BLM 1.68 (1.05-2.71) BRCA1 2.15 (1.29-3.58) Lung BRCA2 3.16 (2.36-4.23) NBN 1.94 (1.07-3.53) Endometrial BRCA1 8.05 (4.83-13.4) BRCA2 2.32 (1.19-4.54) MSH3 2.25 (1.07-4.72) Urinary ATM 1.71 (1.21-2.44) Renal MITF p.E318K 1.85 (1.16-2.97) WRN 2.71 (1.39-5.29) Head and neck CDKN2A 6.22 (3.31-11.7) FANCM 2.2 (1.38-3.52) Ovary DDX41 4.56 (1.56-13.36) PALB2 3.33 (1.98-5.61)
Mixed-income development initiatives target distressed public housing for redevelopment and provide support to low-income families. These initiatives involve an involuntary move for families living in the sites targeted for redevelopment. The objectives of this study were to examine housing relocation, neighborhood change, and family well-being among families (n = 383) affected by the South City Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) in Memphis, Tennessee, using longitudinal administrative records merged with census data. Regression analysis and multilevel mixed-effects modeling were utilized to examine quality of life outcomes (e.g., perceived home safety, neighborhood safety, stress). Families who moved out of the CNI zip code improved their neighborhood quality compared to families who stayed. All families experienced improvements to home safety and neighborhood safety, but also experienced increased stress irrespective of decisions to leave or stay in the CNI zip code. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.
Mixed-income initiatives represent promising anti-poverty strategies that assist families living in public housing in the United States. However, little is known about the extensive cross-sector partnerships required for implementation. We address these knowledge gaps by exploring partnerships within the South City Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) in Memphis, Tennessee. The following research questions guide the study: (1) what is the structure of inter-organizational relationships within the South City CNI partner network? and (2) what collaboration processes emerge within the network structure regarding communication, collaboration, and trust? Utilizing an exploratory case study design that leveraged social network analysis (SNA) and in-depth interviews, we found that the South City CNI was relatively dense and moderately centralized. A core group of partners was central for coordinating information and resources, but roles and positionality changed across each network. The presence of a high-capacity lead organization and multiple bridging organizations aided implementation. We conclude by discussing implications for practice, policy, and research.
Preventative parent-coaching programs can improve early interaction quality, language skills, and academic outcomes for children experiencing economic adversity. Using a community-based participatory research framework, we piloted Duet, a preventative, parent-implemented, early language intervention. We assigned home visitors to provide Duet or standard-of-care services to 23 children (aged 1; 0–2; 3; 9 Duet, 14 control) and their parents. We used odds ratios to describe the likelihood of improvement. The Duet group had greater odds of improvement than the control group for parent developmental knowledge (moderate effect size), self-efficacy (moderate effect size), parent–child interaction (moderate effect size), and child's language (weak effect size). The preliminary Duet data are promising. Limitations included recruitment and retention in the community setting. Future research will explore Duet's efficacy, effectiveness, and scalability.
