1
|
Ward SV, Burton A, Tamimi RM, Pereira A, Garmendia ML, Pollan M, Boyd N, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Maskarinec G, Perez-Gomez B, Vachon C, Miao H, Lajous M, López-Ridaura R, Bertrand K, Kwong A, Ursin G, Lee E, Ma H, Vinnicombe S, Moss S, Allen S, Ndumia R, Vinayak S, Teo SH, Mariapun S, Peplonska B, Bukowska-Damska A, Nagata C, Hopper J, Giles G, Ozmen V, Aribal ME, Schüz J, Van Gils CH, Wanders JOP, Sirous R, Sirous M, Hipwell J, Kim J, Lee JW, Dickens C, Hartman M, Chia KS, Scott C, Chiarelli AM, Linton L, Flugelman AA, Salem D, Kamal R, McCormack V, Stone J. The association of age at menarche and adult height with mammographic density in the International Consortium of Mammographic Density. Breast Cancer Res 2022; 24:49. [PMID: 35836268 PMCID: PMC9284807 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-022-01545-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2022] [Accepted: 06/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early age at menarche and tall stature are associated with increased breast cancer risk. We examined whether these associations were also positively associated with mammographic density, a strong marker of breast cancer risk. METHODS Participants were 10,681 breast-cancer-free women from 22 countries in the International Consortium of Mammographic Density, each with centrally assessed mammographic density and a common set of epidemiologic data. Study periods for the 27 studies ranged from 1987 to 2014. Multi-level linear regression models estimated changes in square-root per cent density (√PD) and dense area (√DA) associated with age at menarche and adult height in pooled analyses and population-specific meta-analyses. Models were adjusted for age at mammogram, body mass index, menopausal status, hormone therapy use, mammography view and type, mammographic density assessor, parity and height/age at menarche. RESULTS In pooled analyses, later age at menarche was associated with higher per cent density (β√PD = 0.023 SE = 0.008, P = 0.003) and larger dense area (β√DA = 0.032 SE = 0.010, P = 0.002). Taller women had larger dense area (β√DA = 0.069 SE = 0.028, P = 0.012) and higher per cent density (β√PD = 0.044, SE = 0.023, P = 0.054), although the observed effect on per cent density depended upon the adjustment used for body size. Similar overall effect estimates were observed in meta-analyses across population groups. CONCLUSIONS In one of the largest international studies to date, later age at menarche was positively associated with mammographic density. This is in contrast to its association with breast cancer risk, providing little evidence of mediation. Increased height was also positively associated with mammographic density, particularly dense area. These results suggest a complex relationship between growth and development, mammographic density and breast cancer risk. Future studies should evaluate the potential mediation of the breast cancer effects of taller stature through absolute breast density.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah V Ward
- School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Anya Burton
- Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon Cedex 08, France
- Translation Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, USA
| | - Ana Pereira
- Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | | | - Marina Pollan
- Cancer and Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Norman Boyd
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Isabel Dos-Santos-Silva
- Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | | | - Beatriz Perez-Gomez
- Cancer and Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
- Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Celine Vachon
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Hui Miao
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore City, Singapore
| | - Martín Lajous
- Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Mexico
| | | | | | - Ava Kwong
- Division of Breast Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong, China
- Department of Surgery and Cancer Genetics Center, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong, China
- Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong, China
| | - Giske Ursin
- Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Eunjung Lee
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Huiyan Ma
- Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, CA, USA
| | - Sarah Vinnicombe
- Division of Cancer Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Steve Allen
- Department of Imaging, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Rose Ndumia
- Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
| | | | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | | | - Beata Peplonska
- Department of Environmental Epidemiology, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Łódź, Poland
| | - Agnieszka Bukowska-Damska
- Department of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Clinical Immunology,, Medical University of Lodz., Łódź, Poland
| | - Chisato Nagata
- Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu University, Gifu, Japan
| | - John Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Graham Giles
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Vahit Ozmen
- Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Erkin Aribal
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Joachim Schüz
- School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Carla H Van Gils
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johanna O P Wanders
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Reza Sirous
- Radiology Department, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Mehri Sirous
- Radiology Department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - John Hipwell
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jisun Kim
- Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Caroline Dickens
- Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore City, Singapore
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore City, Singapore
| | - Kee-Seng Chia
- NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Christopher Scott
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Anna M Chiarelli
- Ontario Breast Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Linda Linton
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Anath Arzee Flugelman
- National Cancer Control Center, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute Technology, Haifa, Israel
| | - Dorria Salem
- Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Rasha Kamal
- Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Valerie McCormack
- Environment and Lifestyle Epidemiology Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon Cedex 08, France.
| | - Jennifer Stone
- School of Population and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Alten R, Latymer M, Gruben DC, Gunther-Lavergne L, Moss S, Kameda H. AB1523-HPR USABILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY OF A NEW AUTOINJECTOR DEVICE AND ITS ASSOCIATED APP IN AUSTRALIAN, FRENCH, GERMANY AND JAPANESE RHEUMATOLOGY PATIENTS. Ann Rheum Dis 2022. [DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-eular.772] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
BackgroundSmartclic/ClicWise is a new reusable autoinjector with a dose-dispensing cartridge for subcutaneous self-administration of biotherapeutics in development for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other diseases. The device can connect to an optional mobile phone app (Smartclic, or ClicNote in Japan) to aid in tracking injections and other treatment or symptom data.ObjectivesThe study objective was to collect ease of use and usability data on the Smartclic injector and companion app from experienced patients.MethodsAfter completing a patient profiling questionnaire, adult patients (≥18 yrs) from Australia, France, Germany, and Japan with RA, psoriatic arthritis, or an original diagnosis of juvenile idiopathic arthritis who were prescribed an injectable biologic were enrolled in this study. For Japan, only patients with RA were enrolled. Each patient received training individually on the use of the Smartclic injector device and insertable cartridge and gained experience by performing simulated injections. Participants completed a questionnaire with evaluations of the device categories (number of questions): ‘ease of use’ (14), ‘usability effectiveness’ (11), ‘benefit of features’ (8), and ‘form factor’ (7). Participants also separately received a storyboard presentation summarizing the key features of the app, during which patients could explore the app (on a phone with either an android or iOS operating system), and completed 16 questions on the connectivity, usability, and benefit. Responses were recorded as Likert scale ratings from 1 (‘extremely negative’) to 7 (‘extremely positive’). Respondents also provided an estimate of patient training time for the device. Mean values were reported. The percentage of negative (Likert scale rating 1-2), neutral (3-5), and positive (6-7) responses for each category were determined.ResultsA total of 139 patients (mean age [range], 52 [18-84] yrs; 73% female) participated in the study (Table 1). Mean scores (percentage of positive responses) for the device were: ease of use 6.43 (86.2%), usability effectiveness 6.39 (86.5%), benefit of features 6.46 (89.4%), form factor 6.10 (77.2%); and 6.06 (74.2%) for connectivity and benefit of the app (Figure 1). Mean estimated time for training a patient to effectively use the device/cartridge was just under 9.5 min (range, 0-30 min).Table 1.Participant characteristicsCharacteristicPatients(N=139)Sex, n (%)Male38 (27)Female101 (73)Mean age (range), yrs52 (18-84)Age groups, n (%)18-30 yrs11 (8)31-59 yrs85 (61)>60 yrs43 (31)Diagnosis, n (%)Rheumatoid arthritis104 (75)Psoriatic arthritis34 (24)Juvenile idiopathic arthritis*1 (1)Handedness, n (%)Right-handed128 (92)Left-handed9 (6)Ambidextrous2 (1)*Originally diagnosed with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, but now aged ≥18 yrs.ConclusionRheumatology patients responded positively on the new autoinjector device and app across all categories, indicating its suitability for self-administration of biotherapeutics.AcknowledgementsMedical writing support was provided by Jacob Evans, of Engage Scientific Solutions.Disclosure of InterestsRieke Alten Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly and Pfizer, Mark Latymer Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, David C Gruben Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Lisa Gunther-LaVergne Employee of: Farm Design, Simon Moss Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Pfizer, Hideto Kameda Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eisai, Janssen, Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai and Mitsubishi-Tanabe
Collapse
|
3
|
Jordan A, Patel S, Maynes E, Weber M, Moss S, Royer T, Tchantchaleishvili V, Massey H, Rame J, Zurlo J, Aburjania N. Infective Endocarditis Following Heart Transplantation: A Systematic Review. J Heart Lung Transplant 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2021.01.428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022] Open
|
4
|
Hatam S, Moss S, Cubillo C, Berry D. Treating children with disinhibited social engagement disorder symptoms: Filial therapy. Eur Psychiatry 2021. [PMCID: PMC9479847 DOI: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.1700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Children affected by social neglect and other forms of abuse are at significant risk of developing mental health problems as well as social, academic, and behavioral functioning difficulties. Some studies have assessed the effectiveness of treatment for children with trauma-attachment disorder. Nevertheless, some questions remain to be answered regarding appropriate treatment. Objectives Aim This research identified how filial therapy affects the extent to which foster parents are responsive, sensitive, and attentive to the needs of their children in their care. Subsequently, the study explored how this bond, influenced during filial therapy, affects the signs and symptoms of disinhibited social engagement disorder. Methods Method This study used case study as the methodology to research the influence of filial therapy (CPRT) in foster children who show the symptoms of disinhibited social engagement disorder- aged three to six. Two sets of foster parents received a 10-session filial therapy model (CPRT) across 10 weeks. Pre and post measures of the parent-child relationship were analyzed. Results Result The findings indicate that filial therapy greatly enhances the bond between foster parents and children with DSEDs. Moreover, these improvements in the bond diminished the symptoms of disinhibited social engagement disorder. Conclusions Conclusion The impact of filial therapy as a responsive intervention reduced the symptoms of disinhibited social engagement disorder. The symptoms have declined very likely as a result of rebuilding, regenerating, and enhancing the relationship between foster children and foster parents. Disclosure No significant relationships.
Collapse
|
5
|
Duffy S, Vulkan D, Cuckle H, Parmar D, Sheikh S, Smith R, Evans A, Blyuss O, Johns L, Ellis I, Sasieni P, Wale C, Myles J, Moss S. Annual mammographic screening to reduce breast cancer mortality in women from age 40 years: long-term follow-up of the UK Age RCT. Health Technol Assess 2020; 24:1-24. [PMID: 33141657 PMCID: PMC7681269 DOI: 10.3310/hta24550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There remains disagreement on the long-term effect of mammographic screening in women aged 40-49 years. OBJECTIVES The long-term follow-up of a randomised controlled trial that offered annual mammography to women aged 40-49 years. The estimation of the effect of these mammograms on breast cancer and other-cause mortality, and the effect on incidence, with implications for overdiagnosis. DESIGN An individually randomised controlled trial comparing offering annual mammography with offering usual care in those aged 40-48 years, and thus evaluating the effect of annual screening entirely taking place before the age of 50 years. There was follow-up for an average of 23 years for breast cancer incidence, breast cancer death and death from other causes. We analysed the mortality and incidence data by Poisson regression and estimated overdiagnosis formally using Markov process models. SETTING Twenty-three screening units in England, Wales and Scotland within the NHS Breast Screening Programme. PARTICIPANTS Women aged 39-41 years were recruited between 1990 and 1997. After exclusions, a total of 53,883 women were randomised to undergo screening (the intervention group) and 106,953 women were randomised to have usual care (the control group). INTERVENTIONS The intervention group was invited to an annual breast screen with film mammography, two view at first screen and single view thereafter, up to and including the calendar year of their 48th birthday. The control group received no intervention. Both groups were invited to the National Programme from the age of 50 years, when screening is offered to all women in the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome measures were mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase of the trial (i.e. before the first National Programme screen at 50 years), mortality from all breast cancers diagnosed after randomisation, all-cause mortality, mortality from causes other than breast cancer, and the incidence of breast cancer. RESULTS There was a statistically significant 25% reduction in mortality from breast cancers diagnosed during the intervention phase at 10 years' follow-up (relative rate 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 0.97; p = 0.03). No reduction was observed thereafter (relative rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.22). Overall, there was a statistically non-significant 12% reduction (relative rate 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.03; p = 0.1). The absolute benefit remained approximately constant over time, at one death prevented per 1000 women screened. There was no effect of intervention on other-cause mortality (relative rate 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.97 to 1.07; p = 0.4). The intervention group had a higher incidence of breast cancer than the control group during the intervention phase of the trial, but incidence equalised immediately on the first National Programme screen at the age of 50-52 years. LIMITATIONS There was 31% average non-compliance with screening and three centres had to cease screening for resource and capacity reasons. CONCLUSIONS Annual mammographic screening at the age of 40-49 years resulted in a relative reduction in mortality, which was attenuated after 10 years. It is likely that digital mammography with two views at all screens, as practised now, could improve this further. There was no evidence of overdiagnosis in addition to that which already results from the National Programme carried out at later ages. FUTURE WORK There is a need for research on the effects of modern mammographic protocols and additional imaging in this age group. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24647151. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Other funding in the past has been received from the Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Department of Health and Social Care, the US National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Duffy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Daniel Vulkan
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Howard Cuckle
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Dharmishta Parmar
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Shama Sheikh
- Cancer Prevention Group, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Robert Smith
- Cancer Screening, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Andrew Evans
- Division of Cancer Research, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Oleg Blyuss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Louise Johns
- Cancer Prevention Group, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Ian Ellis
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, UK
| | - Peter Sasieni
- Cancer Prevention Group, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Chris Wale
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan Myles
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Perry N, Moss S, Dixon S, Milner S, Mokbel K, Lemech C, Arkenau HT, Duffy S, Pinker K. Mammographic Breast Density and Urbanization: Interactions with BMI, Environmental, Lifestyle, and Other Patient Factors. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10:diagnostics10060418. [PMID: 32575725 PMCID: PMC7344692 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10060418] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2020] [Revised: 06/18/2020] [Accepted: 06/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Mammographic breast density (MBD) is an important imaging biomarker of breast cancer risk, but it has been suggested that increased MBD is not a genuine finding once corrected for age and body mass index (BMI). This study examined the association of various factors, including both residing in and working in the urban setting, with MBD. Questionnaires were completed by 1144 women attending for mammography at the London Breast Institute in 2012–2013. Breast density was assessed with an automated volumetric breast density measurement system (Volpara) and compared with subjective radiologist assessment. Multivariable linear regression was used to model the relationship between MBD and residence in the urban setting as well as working in the urban setting, adjusting for both age and BMI and other menstrual, reproductive, and lifestyle factors. Urban residence was significantly associated with an increasing percent of MBD, but this association became non-significant when adjusted for age and BMI. This was not the case for women who were both residents in the urban setting and still working. Our results suggest that the association between urban women and increased MBD can be partially explained by their lower BMI, but for women still working, there appear to be other contributing factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nick Perry
- London Breast Institute, Princess Grace Hospital, London W1U 5NY, UK; (S.M.); (K.M.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +44-(0)20-7908-2040
| | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.M.); (S.D.)
| | | | - Sue Milner
- London Breast Institute, Princess Grace Hospital, London W1U 5NY, UK; (S.M.); (K.M.)
| | - Kefah Mokbel
- London Breast Institute, Princess Grace Hospital, London W1U 5NY, UK; (S.M.); (K.M.)
| | - Charlotte Lemech
- Scientia Clinical Research, Sydney, Australia and Prince of Wales Hospital Clinical School, UNSW, Sydney NSW 2031, Australia;
| | | | - Stephen Duffy
- Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK; (S.M.); (S.D.)
| | - Katja Pinker
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA;
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Arnold R, Amos D, Lowe H, Elder A, Martin S, Moss S, McMaster K, Juergens C, Ryan E, Larnach G, Adams M. 472 Development of a Rural NSW Cardiac Catheter and Coronary Intervention Service Over 14 Years: Impacts on Service and 30 Day AMI Mortality. Heart Lung Circ 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2020.09.479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
8
|
Moss S, Arnold R, Lowe H, Elder A, Juergens C, McMaster K, Roach A, Larnach G, Adams M, Amos D. 436 A Rural 24/7 Cardiac Catheter Lab Service in Western NSW Local Health District (WNSWLHD): Locally Based Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) Care With Low Mortality Over 5 Years. Heart Lung Circ 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2020.09.443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
9
|
Stone L, Arneil M, Coventry L, Casey V, Moss S, Cavadino A, Laing B, McCarthy AL. Benchmarking nurse outcomes in Australian Magnet® hospitals: cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs 2019; 18:62. [PMID: 31827388 PMCID: PMC6892144 DOI: 10.1186/s12912-019-0383-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2019] [Accepted: 11/15/2019] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Positive reports of nursing-related outcomes such as quality nursing care, nursing engagement with work and good practice environment are crucial in attaining and maintaining Magnet® designation. The majority of Magnet®-designated organisations (N = 482) are in the USA, with their aggregate nursing outcomes widely published as benchmark data. Australian Magnet® outcomes have not been aggregated or published to date. Methods The aims are to benchmark educational preparation, occupational burnout, job satisfaction, intention to leave and working environment of nurses in Australian Magnet®-designated facilities and to determine the reliability of the Practice Environment Scale-Australia. The design is a cross-sectional multisite survey set in all three Australian Magnet®-designated organisations. The demographics included age, gender, level of education, years in practice, level of seniority and position title. Two items measured job satisfaction and intent to stay in current employment. The Maslach Burnout Inventory explored the three domains of nursing engagement: depersonalisation, personal achievement and emotional exhaustion. The Australian version of the Practice Environment Scale interrogated participants’ perceptions of their work environments. Results 2004 nurses participated (response rate 45.9%). Respondents’ mean age was 39.2 years (range 20–72). They were predominantly female and had worked in their current facility for more than 5 years. Eighty five percent had a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree. Eighty-six percent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their current position. Eighty eight percent had no intention of leaving their current employer within the next 12 months. Participants rated their hospitals highly in all domains of the practice environment. Respondents reported less burnout in the personal accomplishment and depersonalisation domains than in the emotional exhaustion domain, in which they reported average levels of burnout. The internal consistency of the Practice Environment Scale-Australia was confirmed in this sample (Cronbach α’s 0.87–0.9 for subscales and 0.89 for composite score). Conclusion In this paper, we present nursing outcome data from all Australian Magnet® hospitals for the first time. This provides a benchmark that facilitates comparison with nursing outcomes published by Australian non-Magnet® hospitals and with international Magnet® organisations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Stone
- 1Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland Australia.,2University of Queenland, Brisbane, Queensland Australia
| | - M Arneil
- 1Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland Australia
| | - L Coventry
- 3Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Western Australia.,4Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia
| | - V Casey
- 1Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland Australia.,2University of Queenland, Brisbane, Queensland Australia.,5University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland Australia
| | - S Moss
- 1Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland Australia
| | - A Cavadino
- 6University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - B Laing
- 5University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland Australia
| | - A L McCarthy
- 1Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland Australia.,5University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland Australia.,6University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.,7Mater Health Services, South Brisbane, Queensland Australia
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Rebolj M, Rimmer J, Denton K, Tidy J, Mathews C, Ellis K, Smith J, Evans C, Giles T, Frew V, Tyler X, Sargent A, Parker J, Holbrook M, Hunt K, Tidbury P, Levine T, Smith D, Patnick J, Stubbs R, Moss S, Kitchener H. Primary cervical screening with high risk human papillomavirus testing: observational study. BMJ 2019; 364:l240. [PMID: 30728133 PMCID: PMC6364146 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l240] [Citation(s) in RCA: 102] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/01/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To provide the first report on the main outcomes from the prevalence and incidence rounds of a large pilot of routine primary high risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing in England, compared with contemporaneous primary liquid based cytology screening. DESIGN Observational study. SETTING The English Cervical Screening Programme. PARTICIPANTS 578 547 women undergoing cervical screening in primary care between May 2013 and December 2014, with follow-up until May 2017; 183 970 (32%) were screened with hrHPV testing. INTERVENTIONS Routine cervical screening with hrHPV testing with liquid based cytology triage and two early recalls for women who were hrHPV positive and cytology negative, following the national screening age and interval recommendations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Frequency of referral for a colposcopy; adherence to early recall; and relative detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse from hrHPV testing compared with liquid based cytology in two consecutive screening rounds. RESULTS Baseline hrHPV testing and early recall required approximately 80% more colposcopies, (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 1.82), but detected substantially more cervical intraepithelial neoplasia than liquid based cytology (1.49 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse, 1.43 to 1.55; 1.44 for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse, 1.36 to 1.51) and for cervical cancer (1.27, 0.99 to 1.63). Attendance at early recall and colposcopy referral were 80% and 95%, respectively. At the incidence screen, the 33 506 women screened with hrHPV testing had substantially less cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse than the 77 017 women screened with liquid based cytology (0.14, 0.09 to 0.23). CONCLUSIONS In England, routine primary hrHPV screening increased the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse and cervical cancer by approximately 40% and 30%, respectively, compared with liquid based cytology. The very low incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse after three years supports extending the screening interval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matejka Rebolj
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London SE1 9RT, UK
| | - Janet Rimmer
- Young Person and Adult Screening Programmes, Public Health England, Sheffield, UK
| | - Karin Denton
- PHE Screening Quality Assurance Service South, Public Health England, Bristol, UK
- Severn Pathology, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - John Tidy
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Christopher Mathews
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London SE1 9RT, UK
| | - Kay Ellis
- Cytology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - John Smith
- Cytology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
| | - Chris Evans
- NHS Liverpool Clinical Laboratories, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Thomas Giles
- NHS Liverpool Clinical Laboratories, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Viki Frew
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Norfolk & Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Xenia Tyler
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Norfolk & Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
| | - Alexandra Sargent
- Clinical Virology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Janet Parker
- Cellular Pathology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Miles Holbrook
- Cellular Pathology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Katherine Hunt
- Severn Pathology, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Penny Tidbury
- Severn Pathology, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Tanya Levine
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Northwick Park Hospital, London, UK
| | - David Smith
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Northwick Park Hospital, London, UK
| | - Julietta Patnick
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Ruth Stubbs
- Young Person and Adult Screening Programmes, Public Health England, Sheffield, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Henry Kitchener
- Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester and Manchester NIHR BRC, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Evans D, Thomas S, Caunt J, Burch A, Brentnall A, Roberts L, Howell A, Wilson M, Fox R, Hillier S, Sibbering D, Moss S, Wallis M, Eccles D, Duffy S. Final Results of the Prospective FH02 Mammographic Surveillance Study of Women Aged 35-39 at Increased Familial Risk of Breast Cancer. EClinicalMedicine 2019; 7:39-46. [PMID: 31008449 PMCID: PMC6472550 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.01.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2018] [Revised: 12/24/2018] [Accepted: 01/16/2019] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many women who are at increased risk of breast cancer due to a mother or sister diagnosed with breast cancer aged under 40 do not currently qualify for surveillance before 40 years of age. There are almost no available data to assess whether mammography screening aged 35-39 years would be effective in this group, in terms of detection of breast cancer at an early stage or cost effective. METHODS A cohort screening study (FH02) with annual mammography was devised for women aged 35-39 to assess the sensitivity and screening performance and potential survival of women with identified tumours. FINDINGS 2899 women were recruited from 12/2006-12/2015. These women underwent 12,086 annual screening mammograms and were followed for 13,365.8 years. A total of 55 breast cancers in 54 women occurred during the study period (one bilateral) with 50 cancers (49 women) (15 CIS) adherent to the screening. Eighty percent (28/35) of invasive cancers were ≤ 2 cm and 80% also lymph node negative. Invasive cancers diagnosed in FH02 were significantly smaller than the comparable (POSH-unscreened prospective) study group (45% (131/293) ≤ 2 cm in POSH vs 80% (28/35) in FH02 p < 0.0001), and were less likely to be lymph-node positive (54% (158/290, 3 unknown) in POSH vs 20% (7/35) in FH02: p = 0.0002. Projected and actual survival were also better than POSH. Overall radiation dose was not higher than in an older screened population at mean dose on study per standard sized breast of 1.5 mGy. INTERPRETATION Mammography screening aged 35-39 years detects breast cancer at an early stage and is likely to be as effective in reducing mortality as in women at increased breast cancer risk aged 40-49 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D.G. Evans
- Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital Manchester Universities Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester Universities Foundation Trust, St. Mary's Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Christie Hospital, Withington, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - S. Thomas
- Breast Test Wales, 18 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LJ, UK
| | - J. Caunt
- Breast Test Wales, 18 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LJ, UK
| | - A. Burch
- Breast Test Wales, 18 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LJ, UK
| | - A.R. Brentnall
- Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine' Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - L. Roberts
- Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital Manchester Universities Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
| | - A. Howell
- Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital Manchester Universities Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Christie Hospital, Withington, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - M. Wilson
- Breast Screening Unit, Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
| | - R. Fox
- Breast Test Wales, 18 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LJ, UK
| | - S. Hillier
- Breast Test Wales, 18 Cathedral Road, Cardiff CF11 9LJ, UK
| | | | - S. Moss
- Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine' Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - M.G. Wallis
- Cambridge Breast Unit, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Unit, Box 97, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - D.M. Eccles
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
| | | | - S. Duffy
- Cancer Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Mathematics and Statistics, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine' Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Moss M, Moss S. MULTIPLE SIBLINGS’ EXPERIENCES OF THEIR ELDERLY PARENT’S DEATH: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. Innov Aging 2018. [DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igy023.133] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
|
13
|
Mikropoulos C, Hutten Selkirk CG, Saya S, Bancroft E, Vertosick E, Dadaev T, Brendler C, Page E, Dias A, Evans DG, Rothwell J, Maehle L, Axcrona K, Richardson K, Eccles D, Jensen T, Osther PJ, van Asperen CJ, Vasen H, Kiemeney LA, Ringelberg J, Cybulski C, Wokolorczyk D, Hart R, Glover W, Lam J, Taylor L, Salinas M, Feliubadaló L, Oldenburg R, Cremers R, Verhaegh G, van Zelst-Stams WA, Oosterwijk JC, Cook J, Rosario DJ, Buys SS, Conner T, Domchek S, Powers J, Ausems MGEM, Teixeira MR, Maia S, Izatt L, Schmutzler R, Rhiem K, Foulkes WD, Boshari T, Davidson R, Ruijs M, Helderman-van den Enden ATJM, Andrews L, Walker L, Snape K, Henderson A, Jobson I, Lindeman GJ, Liljegren A, Harris M, Adank MA, Kirk J, Taylor A, Susman R, Chen-Shtoyerman R, Pachter N, Spigelman A, Side L, Zgajnar J, Mora J, Brewer C, Gadea N, Brady AF, Gallagher D, van Os T, Donaldson A, Stefansdottir V, Barwell J, James PA, Murphy D, Friedman E, Nicolai N, Greenhalgh L, Obeid E, Murthy V, Copakova L, McGrath J, Teo SH, Strom S, Kast K, Leongamornlert DA, Chamberlain A, Pope J, Newlin AC, Aaronson N, Ardern-Jones A, Bangma C, Castro E, Dearnaley D, Eyfjord J, Falconer A, Foster CS, Gronberg H, Hamdy FC, Johannsson O, Khoo V, Lubinski J, Grindedal EM, McKinley J, Shackleton K, Mitra AV, Moynihan C, Rennert G, Suri M, Tricker K, Moss S, Kote-Jarai Z, Vickers A, Lilja H, Helfand BT, Eeles RA. Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition. Br J Cancer 2018; 118:e17. [PMID: 29509747 PMCID: PMC5877440 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2018.11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.429.
Collapse
|
14
|
Moss S, Greenbaum R, Sever PS. Preoperative Localization of a Phaeochromocytoma Using Plasma Noradrenaline Concentrations in Multiple-Site Samples. J R Soc Med 2018; 73:139-41. [PMID: 7230188 PMCID: PMC1437327 DOI: 10.1177/014107688007300212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
15
|
Affiliation(s)
| | - G L Lenzi
- Department of Radiotherapy, Hammersmith Hospital, Royal Postgraduate Medical School and MRC Cyclotron Unit, Du Cane Road, London W12
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Mikropoulos C, Selkirk CGH, Saya S, Bancroft E, Vertosick E, Dadaev T, Brendler C, Page E, Dias A, Evans DG, Rothwell J, Maehle L, Axcrona K, Richardson K, Eccles D, Jensen T, Osther PJ, van Asperen CJ, Vasen H, Kiemeney LA, Ringelberg J, Cybulski C, Wokolorczyk D, Hart R, Glover W, Lam J, Taylor L, Salinas M, Feliubadaló L, Oldenburg R, Cremers R, Verhaegh G, van Zelst-Stams WA, Oosterwijk JC, Cook J, Rosario DJ, Buys SS, Conner T, Domchek S, Powers J, Ausems MGEM, Teixeira MR, Maia S, Izatt L, Schmutzler R, Rhiem K, Foulkes WD, Boshari T, Davidson R, Ruijs M, Helderman-van den Enden ATJM, Andrews L, Walker L, Snape K, Henderson A, Jobson I, Lindeman GJ, Liljegren A, Harris M, Adank MA, Kirk J, Taylor A, Susman R, Chen-Shtoyerman R, Pachter N, Spigelman A, Side L, Zgajnar J, Mora J, Brewer C, Gadea N, Brady AF, Gallagher D, van Os T, Donaldson A, Stefansdottir V, Barwell J, James PA, Murphy D, Friedman E, Nicolai N, Greenhalgh L, Obeid E, Murthy V, Copakova L, McGrath J, Teo SH, Strom S, Kast K, Leongamornlert DA, Chamberlain A, Pope J, Newlin AC, Aaronson N, Ardern-Jones A, Bangma C, Castro E, Dearnaley D, Eyfjord J, Falconer A, Foster CS, Gronberg H, Hamdy FC, Johannsson O, Khoo V, Lubinski J, Grindedal EM, McKinley J, Shackleton K, Mitra AV, Moynihan C, Rennert G, Suri M, Tricker K, Moss S, Kote-Jarai Z, Vickers A, Lilja H, Helfand BT, Eeles RA. Prostate-specific antigen velocity in a prospective prostate cancer screening study of men with genetic predisposition. Br J Cancer 2018; 118:266-276. [PMID: 29301143 PMCID: PMC5785754 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.429] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2017] [Revised: 11/03/2017] [Accepted: 11/06/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA-velocity (PSAV) have been used to identify men at risk of prostate cancer (PrCa). The IMPACT study is evaluating PSA screening in men with a known genetic predisposition to PrCa due to BRCA1/2 mutations. This analysis evaluates the utility of PSA and PSAV for identifying PrCa and high-grade disease in this cohort. METHODS PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV. RESULTS 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers. CONCLUSIONS PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Christina G Hutten Selkirk
- The John and Carol Walter Center for Urological Health, Department of Surgery, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
- Center for Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
| | - Sibel Saya
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Elizabeth Bancroft
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Rd, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Emily Vertosick
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Tokhir Dadaev
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Charles Brendler
- The John and Carol Walter Center for Urological Health, Department of Surgery, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
| | - Elizabeth Page
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Alexander Dias
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Rd, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Genomic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Jeanette Rothwell
- Genomic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Lovise Maehle
- Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo 0372, Norway
| | - Karol Axcrona
- Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog 1478, Norway
| | - Kate Richardson
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
- The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Diana Eccles
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton SO16 5YA, UK
- Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - Thomas Jensen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Vejle Hospital, Vejle 7100, Denmark
| | - Palle J Osther
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Vejle Hospital, Vejle 7100, Denmark
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden, ZA 2333, The Netherlands
| | - Hans Vasen
- Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumors, Leiden, ZA 2333, The Netherlands
| | | | - Janneke Ringelberg
- Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumors, Leiden, ZA 2333, The Netherlands
| | - Cezary Cybulski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin 70-204, Poland
| | - Dominika Wokolorczyk
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin 70-204, Poland
| | - Rachel Hart
- Clinical Genetics Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK
| | - Wayne Glover
- Clinical Genetics Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK
| | - Jimmy Lam
- Department of Urology, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA 5041, Australia
| | - Louise Taylor
- Department of Urology, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA 5041, Australia
| | - Monica Salinas
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO-IDIBELL, CIBERONC), L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona 08908, Spain
| | - Lidia Feliubadaló
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO-IDIBELL, CIBERONC), L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona 08908, Spain
| | - Rogier Oldenburg
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, The Netherlands
| | - Ruben Cremers
- Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, GA 6525, The Netherlands
| | - Gerald Verhaegh
- Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, GA 6525, The Netherlands
| | - Wendy A van Zelst-Stams
- Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumors, Leiden, ZA 2333, The Netherlands
| | - Jan C Oosterwijk
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
| | - Jackie Cook
- Sheffield Clinical Genetics Service, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield S10 2TH, UK
| | | | - Saundra S Buys
- Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84103, USA
| | - Tom Conner
- Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84103, USA
| | - Susan Domchek
- Basser Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Jacquelyn Powers
- Basser Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
| | - Margreet GEM Ausems
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, CX, The Netherlands
| | - Manuel R Teixeira
- Genetics Department and Research Center, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto 4200-072, Portugal
- Biomedical Sciences Institute (ICBAS), Porto University, Porto 4200-072, Portugal
| | - Sofia Maia
- Genetics Department and Research Center, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto 4200-072, Portugal
| | - Louise Izatt
- South East Thames Genetics Service, Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK
| | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center of Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne 50937, Germany
| | - Kerstin Rhiem
- Center of Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne 50937, Germany
| | - William D Foulkes
- McGill Program in Cancer Genetics, Departments of Oncology and Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada
| | - Talia Boshari
- McGill Program in Cancer Genetics, Departments of Oncology and Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada
| | - Rosemarie Davidson
- Duncan Guthrie Institute of Medical Genetics, Yorkhill NHS Trust, Glasgow G38SJ, UK
| | - Marielle Ruijs
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands
| | | | - Lesley Andrews
- Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
| | - Lisa Walker
- Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK
| | - Katie Snape
- St George’s Hospital, Tooting, London SW17 0QT, UK
| | - Alex Henderson
- Northern Genetics Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK
| | - Irene Jobson
- Northern Genetics Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK
| | - Geoffrey J Lindeman
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan St, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
- Stem Cells and Cancer Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
- Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
| | - Annelie Liljegren
- Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Solna 171 77, Sweden
| | - Marion Harris
- Familial Cancer Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia
| | - Muriel A Adank
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
| | - Judy Kirk
- Familial Cancer Service, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia
- Centre for Cancer Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, Sydney, NSW 2155, Australia
| | - Amy Taylor
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Rachel Susman
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia
| | | | - Nicholas Pachter
- Genetic Services of WA, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
- School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
| | - Allan Spigelman
- Hunter Family Cancer Service, Waratah, NSW 2298, Australia
- University of New South Wales, St Vincent’s Clinical School, NSW 2052, Australia
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
| | - Lucy Side
- NE Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond St Hospital & UCL Institute of Women’s Health, London WC1N 3JH, UK
| | | | | | - Carole Brewer
- Peninsular Genetics, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK
- Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - Neus Gadea
- High Risk and Cancer Prevention Clinic, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona 08035, Spain
| | - Angela F Brady
- North West Thames Regional Genetics Service, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, London HA1 3UJ, UK
| | | | - Theo van Os
- Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Julian Barwell
- University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
- University Hospitals Leicester, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK
| | - Paul A James
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
- The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
- Genetic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3050, Australia
| | - Declan Murphy
- The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Eitan Friedman
- Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer 52621, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel
| | | | - Lynn Greenhalgh
- Cheshire and Mersey Clinical Genetics Service, Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Liverpool L8 7SS, UK
| | - Elias Obeid
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA
| | - Vedang Murthy
- Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400012, India
| | - Lucia Copakova
- National Cancer Institute, Bratislava 83310, Slovak Republic
| | - John McGrath
- Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
| | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Selangor 47500, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
| | - Sara Strom
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
| | - Karin Kast
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden 01069, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden 01307, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
| | | | - Anthony Chamberlain
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Jenny Pope
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Anna C Newlin
- Center for Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
| | - Neil Aaronson
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands
| | | | - Chris Bangma
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, The Netherlands
| | - Elena Castro
- Prostate Cancer Unit, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid 28029, Spain
| | - David Dearnaley
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Rd, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Jorunn Eyfjord
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik 101, Iceland
| | - Alison Falconer
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, London W2 1NY, UK
| | | | | | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK
| | - Oskar Johannsson
- Landspitali—the National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik 101, Iceland
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Rd, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Jan Lubinski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin 70-204, Poland
| | | | - Joanne McKinley
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
| | - Kylie Shackleton
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan St, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
| | - Anita V Mitra
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2BU, UK
| | - Clare Moynihan
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Gad Rennert
- CHS National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa 3436212, Israel
| | - Mohnish Suri
- Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
| | - Karen Tricker
- Genomic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - The IMPACT study collaborators91
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
- The John and Carol Walter Center for Urological Health, Department of Surgery, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
- Center for Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Rd, London SW3 6JJ, UK
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
- Genomic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo 0372, Norway
- Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog 1478, Norway
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
- The Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton SO16 5YA, UK
- Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Vejle Hospital, Vejle 7100, Denmark
- Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden, ZA 2333, The Netherlands
- Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumors, Leiden, ZA 2333, The Netherlands
- Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, GA 6525, The Netherlands
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin 70-204, Poland
- Clinical Genetics Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TG, UK
- Department of Urology, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA 5041, Australia
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO-IDIBELL, CIBERONC), L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona 08908, Spain
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam 3015 CE, The Netherlands
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen 9713 GZ, The Netherlands
- Sheffield Clinical Genetics Service, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield S10 2TH, UK
- Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
- Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84103, USA
- Basser Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, CX, The Netherlands
- Genetics Department and Research Center, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto 4200-072, Portugal
- Biomedical Sciences Institute (ICBAS), Porto University, Porto 4200-072, Portugal
- South East Thames Genetics Service, Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK
- Center of Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne 50937, Germany
- McGill Program in Cancer Genetics, Departments of Oncology and Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G4, Canada
- Duncan Guthrie Institute of Medical Genetics, Yorkhill NHS Trust, Glasgow G38SJ, UK
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam 1066 CX, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, HX 6229, The Netherlands
- Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
- Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LE, UK
- St George’s Hospital, Tooting, London SW17 0QT, UK
- Northern Genetics Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle NE1 3BZ, UK
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan St, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
- Stem Cells and Cancer Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
- Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia
- Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Solna 171 77, Sweden
- Familial Cancer Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands
- Familial Cancer Service, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia
- Centre for Cancer Research, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, Sydney, NSW 2155, Australia
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD 4029, Australia
- The Genetic Institute, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot 76100, Israel
- Genetic Services of WA, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
- School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
- Hunter Family Cancer Service, Waratah, NSW 2298, Australia
- University of New South Wales, St Vincent’s Clinical School, NSW 2052, Australia
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia
- NE Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond St Hospital & UCL Institute of Women’s Health, London WC1N 3JH, UK
- Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia
- Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona 08041, Spain
- Peninsular Genetics, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth PL6 8DH, UK
- Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter EX2 5DW, UK
- High Risk and Cancer Prevention Clinic, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona 08035, Spain
- North West Thames Regional Genetics Service, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, London HA1 3UJ, UK
- St James’ Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland
- Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam 1105 AZ, The Netherlands
- St Michael’s Hospital, Bristol BS2 8EG, UK
- Landspitali—the National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik 101, Iceland
- University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK
- University Hospitals Leicester, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK
- Genetic Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3050, Australia
- Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel-Hashomer 52621, Israel
- Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 6997801, Israel
- Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milano 20133, Italy
- Cheshire and Mersey Clinical Genetics Service, Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Liverpool L8 7SS, UK
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA 19111, USA
- Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400012, India
- National Cancer Institute, Bratislava 83310, Slovak Republic
- Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Subang Jaya, Selangor 47500, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden 01069, Germany
- National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden, Dresden 01307, Germany
- German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg 69120, Germany
- Prostate Cancer Unit, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid 28029, Spain
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik 101, Iceland
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, London W2 1NY, UK
- HCA Healthcare Laboratories, London WC1E 6JA, UK
- University Hospital, Umea 907 37, Sweden
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London NW1 2BU, UK
- CHS National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa 3436212, Israel
- Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK
- The IMPACT Study Collaborators List see Appendix 1
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ
- Departments of Laboratory Medicine, Surgery, and Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
- Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Malmö 205 02, Sweden
| | - Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ
| | - Zsofia Kote-Jarai
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Hans Lilja
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK
- Departments of Laboratory Medicine, Surgery, and Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Brian T Helfand
- The John and Carol Walter Center for Urological Health, Department of Surgery, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL 60201, USA
| | - Rosalind A Eeles
- The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK
- Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Fulham Rd, London SW3 6JJ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Moss S, Mathews C, Day TJ, Smith S, Seaman HE, Snowball J, Halloran SP. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut 2017; 66:1631-1644. [PMID: 27267903 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310691] [Citation(s) in RCA: 132] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2015] [Revised: 04/21/2016] [Accepted: 05/08/2016] [Indexed: 12/08/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England uses a guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBt). A quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for haemoglobin (Hb) has many advantages, including being specific for human blood, detecting Hb at a much lower concentration with a single faecal sample and improved uptake. METHODS In 2014, a large comparative pilot study was performed within BCSP to establish the acceptability and diagnostic performance of FIT. Over a 6-month period, 40 930 (1 in 28) subjects were sent a FIT (OC-SENSOR) instead of a gFOBt. A bespoke FIT package was used to mail FIT sampling devices to and from FIT subjects. All participants positive with either gFOBt or FIT (cut-off 20 µg Hb/g faeces) were referred for follow-up. Subgroup analysis included cut-off concentrations, age, sex, screening history and deprivation quintile. RESULTS While overall uptake increased by over 7 percentage points with FIT (66.4% vs 59.3%, OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.38), uptake by previous non-responders almost doubled (FIT 23.9% vs gFOBt 12.5%, OR 2.20, 95% CI 2.10 to 2.29). The increase in overall uptake was significantly higher in men than women and was observed across all deprivation quintiles. With the conventional 20 µg/g cut-off, FIT positivity was 7.8% and ranged from 5.7% in 59-64-year-old women to 11.1% in 70-75-year-old men. Cancer detection increased twofold and that for advanced adenomas nearly fivefold. Detection rates remained higher with FIT for advanced adenomas, even at 180 µg Hb/g. CONCLUSIONS Markedly improved participation rates were achieved in a mature gFOBt-based national screening programme and disparities between men and women were reduced. High positivity rates, particularly in men and previous non-respondents, challenge the available colonoscopy resource, but improvements in neoplasia detection are still achievable within this limited resource.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Christopher Mathews
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - T J Day
- NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield, UK
| | - Steve Smith
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Midlands and North West Programme Hub, Rugby, UK
| | - Helen E Seaman
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, UK
| | - Julia Snowball
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, UK
| | - Stephen P Halloran
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, UK.,University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Burton A, Maskarinec G, Perez-Gomez B, Vachon C, Miao H, Lajous M, López-Ridaura R, Rice M, Pereira A, Garmendia ML, Tamimi RM, Bertrand K, Kwong A, Ursin G, Lee E, Qureshi SA, Ma H, Vinnicombe S, Moss S, Allen S, Ndumia R, Vinayak S, Teo SH, Mariapun S, Fadzli F, Peplonska B, Bukowska A, Nagata C, Stone J, Hopper J, Giles G, Ozmen V, Aribal ME, Schüz J, Van Gils CH, Wanders JOP, Sirous R, Sirous M, Hipwell J, Kim J, Lee JW, Dickens C, Hartman M, Chia KS, Scott C, Chiarelli AM, Linton L, Pollan M, Flugelman AA, Salem D, Kamal R, Boyd N, dos-Santos-Silva I, McCormack V. Mammographic density and ageing: A collaborative pooled analysis of cross-sectional data from 22 countries worldwide. PLoS Med 2017; 14:e1002335. [PMID: 28666001 PMCID: PMC5493289 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002335] [Citation(s) in RCA: 76] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2017] [Accepted: 05/24/2017] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mammographic density (MD) is one of the strongest breast cancer risk factors. Its age-related characteristics have been studied in women in western countries, but whether these associations apply to women worldwide is not known. METHODS AND FINDINGS We examined cross-sectional differences in MD by age and menopausal status in over 11,000 breast-cancer-free women aged 35-85 years, from 40 ethnicity- and location-specific population groups across 22 countries in the International Consortium on Mammographic Density (ICMD). MD was read centrally using a quantitative method (Cumulus) and its square-root metrics were analysed using meta-analysis of group-level estimates and linear regression models of pooled data, adjusted for body mass index, reproductive factors, mammogram view, image type, and reader. In all, 4,534 women were premenopausal, and 6,481 postmenopausal, at the time of mammography. A large age-adjusted difference in percent MD (PD) between post- and premenopausal women was apparent (-0.46 cm [95% CI: -0.53, -0.39]) and appeared greater in women with lower breast cancer risk profiles; variation across population groups due to heterogeneity (I2) was 16.5%. Among premenopausal women, the √PD difference per 10-year increase in age was -0.24 cm (95% CI: -0.34, -0.14; I2 = 30%), reflecting a compositional change (lower dense area and higher non-dense area, with no difference in breast area). In postmenopausal women, the corresponding difference in √PD (-0.38 cm [95% CI: -0.44, -0.33]; I2 = 30%) was additionally driven by increasing breast area. The study is limited by different mammography systems and its cross-sectional rather than longitudinal nature. CONCLUSIONS Declines in MD with increasing age are present premenopausally, continue postmenopausally, and are most pronounced over the menopausal transition. These effects were highly consistent across diverse groups of women worldwide, suggesting that they result from an intrinsic biological, likely hormonal, mechanism common to women. If cumulative breast density is a key determinant of breast cancer risk, younger ages may be the more critical periods for lifestyle modifications aimed at breast density and breast cancer risk reduction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anya Burton
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Gertraud Maskarinec
- University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America
| | | | - Celine Vachon
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
| | - Hui Miao
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Martín Lajous
- Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, Mexico
| | | | - Megan Rice
- Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Ana Pereira
- Instituto de Nutrición y Tecnología de los Alimentos, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Maria Luisa Garmendia
- Instituto de Nutrición y Tecnología de los Alimentos, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | - Rulla M. Tamimi
- Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Kimberly Bertrand
- Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Ava Kwong
- Division of Breast Surgery, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
- Department of Surgery and Cancer Genetics Center, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Hong Kong, China
- Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry, Hong Kong, China
| | - Giske Ursin
- Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States of America
| | - Eunjung Lee
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States of America
| | - Samera A. Qureshi
- Norwegian Centre for Migrant and Minority Health (NAKMI), Oslo, Norway
| | - Huiyan Ma
- Department of Population Sciences, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California, United States of America
| | - Sarah Vinnicombe
- Division of Cancer Research, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, United Kingdom
| | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Steve Allen
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rose Ndumia
- Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
| | | | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Breast Cancer Research Group, University of Malaya Medical Centre, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | | | - Farhana Fadzli
- Breast Cancer Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya Cancer Research Institute, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Biomedical Imaging Department, University of Malaya Medical Centre, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | | | | | - Chisato Nagata
- Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu University, Gifu, Japan
| | - Jennifer Stone
- Centre for Genetic Origins of Health and Disease, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia
| | - John Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Graham Giles
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Vahit Ozmen
- Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Erkin Aribal
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Joachim Schüz
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Carla H. Van Gils
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johanna O. P. Wanders
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Reza Sirous
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Mehri Sirous
- Radiology Department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - John Hipwell
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jisun Kim
- Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Caroline Dickens
- Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore
| | - Kee-Seng Chia
- Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Christopher Scott
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States of America
| | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Ontario Breast Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Linda Linton
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marina Pollan
- Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
- CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
| | - Anath Arzee Flugelman
- National Cancer Control Center, Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
| | - Dorria Salem
- Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Rasha Kamal
- Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Norman Boyd
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
- Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Valerie McCormack
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Raine R, Atkin W, von Wagner C, Duffy S, Kralj-Hans I, Hackshaw A, Counsell N, Moss S, McGregor L, Palmer C, Smith SG, Thomas M, Howe R, Vart G, Band R, Halloran SP, Snowball J, Stubbs N, Handley G, Logan R, Rainbow S, Obichere A, Smith S, Morris S, Solmi F, Wardle J. Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials. Programme Grants Appl Res 2017. [DOI: 10.3310/pgfar05080] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
BackgroundBowel cancer screening reduces cancer-specific mortality. There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), which may lead to inequalities in cancer outcomes.ObjectiveTo reduce socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of the NHS BCSP’s guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) without compromising uptake in any socioeconomic group.DesignWorkstream 1 explored psychosocial determinants of non-uptake of gFOBt in focus groups and interviews. Workstream 2 developed and tested four theoretically based interventions: (1) ‘gist’ information, (2) a ‘narrative’ leaflet, (3) ‘general practice endorsement’ (GPE) and (4) an ‘enhanced reminder’ (ER). Workstream 3 comprised four national cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the cost-effectiveness of each intervention.MethodsInterventions were co-designed with user panels, user tested using interviews and focus groups, and piloted with postal questionnaires. RCTs compared ‘usual care’ (existing NHS BCSP invitations) with usual care plus each intervention. The four trials tested: (1) ‘gist’ leaflet (n = 163,525), (2) ‘narrative’ leaflet (n = 150,417), (3) GPE on the invitation letter (n = 265,434) and (4) ER (n = 168,480). Randomisation was based on day of mailing of the screening invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score associated with each individual’s home address was used as the marker of socioeconomic circumstances (SECs). Change in the socioeconomic gradient in uptake (interaction between treatment group and IMD quintile) was the primary outcome. Screening uptake was defined as the return of a gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the invitation that led to a ‘definitive’ test result of either ‘normal’ (i.e. no further investigation required) or ‘abnormal’ (i.e. requiring referral for further testing). Difference in overall uptake was the secondary outcome.ResultsThe gist and narrative trials showed no effect on the SECs gradient or overall uptake (57.6% and 56.7%, respectively, compared with 57.3% and 58.5%, respectively, for usual care; allp-values > 0.05). GPE showed no effect on the gradient (p = 0.5) but increased overall uptake [58.2% vs. 57.5% in usual care, odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.10;p < 0.0001]. ER showed a significant interaction with SECs (p = 0.005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived IMD quintile (14.1% vs. 13.3% in usual care, OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20;p = 0.003) than the least deprived (34.7% vs. 34.9% in usual care OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06;p = 0.98), and higher overall uptake (25.8% vs. 25.1% in usual care, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11;p = 0.001). All interventions were inexpensive to provide.LimitationsIn line with NHS policy, the gist and narrative leaflets supplemented rather than replaced existing NHS BCSP information. This may have undermined their effect.ConclusionsEnhanced reminder reduced the gradient and modestly increased overall uptake, whereas GPE increased overall uptake but did not reduce the gradient. Therefore, given their effectiveness and very low cost, the findings suggest that implementation of both by the NHS BCSP would be beneficial. The gist and narrative results highlight the challenge of achieving equitable delivery of the screening offer when all communication is written; the format is universal and informed decision-making mandates extensive medical information.Future workSocioculturally tailored research to promote communication about screening with family and friends should be developed and evaluated.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN74121020.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosalind Raine
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Wendy Atkin
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Christian von Wagner
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Ines Kralj-Hans
- Department of Biostatistics, King’s Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Allan Hackshaw
- University College London Cancer Trials Centre, London, UK
| | | | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Lesley McGregor
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Cecily Palmer
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Samuel G Smith
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Mary Thomas
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rosemary Howe
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Gemma Vart
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Roger Band
- Patient and Public Involvement Representative, Evesham, UK
| | - Stephen P Halloran
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Julia Snowball
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Neil Stubbs
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Graham Handley
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme North East Hub, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK
| | - Richard Logan
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Eastern Hub, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Sandra Rainbow
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme London Hub, Northwick Park and St Marks Hospitals NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | - Austin Obichere
- North Central London Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Stephen Smith
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Midlands and North West Hub, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Hospital of St Cross, Rugby, UK
| | - Stephen Morris
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Francesca Solmi
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jane Wardle
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Moss S, Nagaraja V, Chia E. Myxoedema Crisis as a Cause for Reversible Complete Heart Block. Heart Lung Circ 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.06.177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
21
|
Moss S, Nagaraja V, Youssef G. Natural Progression of Non-Surgically Managed Infective Endocarditis. Heart Lung Circ 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.06.517] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
22
|
Moss S, Nagaraja V, Hopkins A. An Uncommon Presentation in a Patient with Type 2 Brugada Pattern. Heart Lung Circ 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.06.260] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
23
|
Moss S, Tardo D, Doyle M, Rees D. Complexities in Management of a Young Patient with Multi-Vessel Disease and Familial Hypercholesterolaemia. Heart Lung Circ 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2017.06.166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
24
|
McBride E, Marlow L, Forster AS, Moss S, Myles J, Kitchener H, Patnick J, Waller J. Psychological Impact of Primary Screening (PIPS) for HPV: a protocol for a cross-sectional evaluation within the NHS cervical screening programme. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e014356. [PMID: 28011816 PMCID: PMC5223654 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014356] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2016] [Revised: 11/17/2016] [Accepted: 11/30/2016] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The NHS Cervical Screening Programme is now using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary test in six sentinel sites in England, with the intention of rolling this out across the whole of England. Previous research evaluating HPV testing in the cervical screening context suggests that an HPV-positive result may increase anxiety beyond that associated with abnormal cytology, but this has not been explored in the context of primary HPV testing. The main aim of this study is to explore the impact of the HPV primary screening programme on anxiety and distress. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A cross-sectional between-groups design (total N ∼ 673) will be employed to assess the psychological impact of different HPV and cytology results at three time points: shortly after receiving the results, and 6 and 12 months later. Women will fall into one of six groups based on their screening results. The primary outcomes will be anxiety and general distress. Secondary outcomes will include understanding of screening results, perceived risk of cervical cancer, psychosexual functioning, intention to attend future screening and knowledge of HPV. General linear modelling will be used to test for differences between groups and changes over the three time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Health Research Authority approval was received on 26 September 2016. Ethical approval was received from London- Surrey Borders NHS Research Ethics Committee on 30 August 2016. Section 251 approval was received from the Confidentiality Advisory Group on 24 August 2016. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and presentation at national and international conferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily McBride
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Laura Marlow
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Alice S Forster
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Jonathan Myles
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Henry Kitchener
- Women's Cancer Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Jo Waller
- Epidemiology and Public Health, Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Burton A, Byrnes G, Stone J, Tamimi RM, Heine J, Vachon C, Ozmen V, Pereira A, Garmendia ML, Scott C, Hipwell JH, Dickens C, Schüz J, Aribal ME, Bertrand K, Kwong A, Giles GG, Hopper J, Pérez Gómez B, Pollán M, Teo SH, Mariapun S, Taib NAM, Lajous M, Lopez-Riduara R, Rice M, Romieu I, Flugelman AA, Ursin G, Qureshi S, Ma H, Lee E, Sirous R, Sirous M, Lee JW, Kim J, Salem D, Kamal R, Hartman M, Miao H, Chia KS, Nagata C, Vinayak S, Ndumia R, van Gils CH, Wanders JOP, Peplonska B, Bukowska A, Allen S, Vinnicombe S, Moss S, Chiarelli AM, Linton L, Maskarinec G, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF, dos-Santos-Silva I, McCormack VA. Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems. Breast Cancer Res 2016; 18:130. [PMID: 27993168 PMCID: PMC5168805 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-016-0787-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2016] [Accepted: 11/23/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Inter-women and intra-women comparisons of mammographic density (MD) are needed in research, clinical and screening applications; however, MD measurements are influenced by mammography modality (screen film/digital) and digital image format (raw/processed). We aimed to examine differences in MD assessed on these image types. METHODS We obtained 1294 pairs of images saved in both raw and processed formats from Hologic and General Electric (GE) direct digital systems and a Fuji computed radiography (CR) system, and 128 screen-film and processed CR-digital pairs from consecutive screening rounds. Four readers performed Cumulus-based MD measurements (n = 3441), with each image pair read by the same reader. Multi-level models of square-root percent MD were fitted, with a random intercept for woman, to estimate processed-raw MD differences. RESULTS Breast area did not differ in processed images compared with that in raw images, but the percent MD was higher, due to a larger dense area (median 28.5 and 25.4 cm2 respectively, mean √dense area difference 0.44 cm (95% CI: 0.36, 0.52)). This difference in √dense area was significant for direct digital systems (Hologic 0.50 cm (95% CI: 0.39, 0.61), GE 0.56 cm (95% CI: 0.42, 0.69)) but not for Fuji CR (0.06 cm (95% CI: -0.10, 0.23)). Additionally, within each system, reader-specific differences varied in magnitude and direction (p < 0.001). Conversion equations revealed differences converged to zero with increasing dense area. MD differences between screen-film and processed digital on the subsequent screening round were consistent with expected time-related MD declines. CONCLUSIONS MD was slightly higher when measured on processed than on raw direct digital mammograms. Comparisons of MD on these image formats should ideally control for this non-constant and reader-specific difference.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anya Burton
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon, Cedex 09, France
| | - Graham Byrnes
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon, Cedex 09, France
| | - Jennifer Stone
- Centre for Genetic Origins of Health and Disease, Curtin University and the University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
| | - Rulla M. Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA
| | | | - Celine Vachon
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| | - Vahit Ozmen
- Department of Surgery, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ana Pereira
- Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile
| | | | - Christopher Scott
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
| | - John H. Hipwell
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London, UK
| | - Caroline Dickens
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Joachim Schüz
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon, Cedex 09, France
| | | | | | - Ava Kwong
- Division of Breast Surgery, Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
- Department of Surgery, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China
| | - Graham G. Giles
- Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria Australia
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Australia
| | - John Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Australia
| | - Beatriz Pérez Gómez
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
| | - Marina Pollán
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
| | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | | | - Nur Aishah Mohd Taib
- Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Martín Lajous
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA USA
- Center for Research on Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Ruy Lopez-Riduara
- Center for Research on Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Megan Rice
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA
| | - Isabelle Romieu
- Section of Nutrition and Metabolism, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | | | - Giske Ursin
- Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA USA
| | - Samera Qureshi
- Norwegian Center for Minority and Migrant Health Research (NAKMI), Oslo, Norway
| | - Huiyan Ma
- Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, CA USA
| | - Eunjung Lee
- Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA USA
| | - Reza Sirous
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Mehri Sirous
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Jong Won Lee
- Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Jisun Kim
- Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | | | - Rasha Kamal
- Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, Singapore, Singapore
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Hui Miao
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Kee-Seng Chia
- NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | | | - Rose Ndumia
- Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Carla H. van Gils
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johanna O. P. Wanders
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Steve Allen
- Department of Imaging, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Sarah Vinnicombe
- Division of Cancer Research, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Ontario Breast Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada
| | - Linda Linton
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | | | | | | | - Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
- Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Valerie A. McCormack
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon, Cedex 09, France
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Sepetis A, O'Connor M, Dowsett L, Hoeh A, Gourlaouen M, Moss S, Greenwood J. The role of LRG1 in vessel normalization. Acta Ophthalmol 2016. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2016.0645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
27
|
Abstract
Budner's measure of intolerance of ambiguity has been applied as an explanatory device for a wide variety of behavioral phenomena. Data from 100 high school girls, given several scales, indicate a strong component of ability in the scores. The role of intelligence in studies of intolerance of ambiguity has been neglected; conceptual clarification of the issue appears warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - S. Moss
- University of Western Ontario
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Moss S, Doyle M, Villanueva C. A Presentation of Single Centre Data on Aortic Valve Surgery in an Octogenarian Population Group. Heart Lung Circ 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.06.673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
|
29
|
Moss S, Olinga J, Matthews J. Early BioProsthetic Aortic Valve Endocarditis from Dual Bacterial Pathogens Including HACEK Organism (Cardiobacterium Hominis). Heart Lung Circ 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.06.678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
30
|
Bokhorst LP, Zappa M, Carlsson SV, Kwiatkowski M, Denis L, Paez A, Hugosson J, Moss S, Auvinen A, Roobol MJ. Correlation between stage shift and differences in mortality in the European Randomised study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). BJU Int 2016; 118:677-680. [PMID: 27104278 DOI: 10.1111/bju.13505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Leonard P Bokhorst
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marco Zappa
- Unit of Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology, ISPO, Florence, Italy
| | - Sigrid V Carlsson
- Department of Surgery (Urology Service), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA.,Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | | | | | - Alvaro Paez
- Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- Department of Urology, Sahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Anssi Auvinen
- School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| | - Monique J Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Phadke T, Bothmer A, Lee C, Abdulkerim H, Barrera L, Moss S, Jayaram H, Cotta-Ramusino C. 576. DNA Ends Matter: The Impact of Using CRISPR/Cas9 Variants on DNA Repair Pathway Choices and Editing Profiles at the HBB Locus. Mol Ther 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/s1525-0016(16)33384-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
32
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is currently no national prostate cancer screening programme in the UK. However, patients 50 years and older are entitled to a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test, if informed on the advantages and disadvantages of testing and their risk of cancer. The Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme (PCRMP) provides this guidance. AIM The aim of this study was to access GPs' views and understanding of PSA testing, prostate cancer screening and early detection. METHOD A total of 708 questionnaires were returned by GPs across two English regions in 2013 and the GP questionnaire responses were quantitatively analysed. RESULTS In the 699 completed questionnaires, the majority of GPs were well informed about PSA testing, screening and early detection. Only 32% used guidelines for referral, 14% knew all age-specific PSA referral levels, 71% that Black men have a higher prostate cancer risk than White men (22% correctly answered threefold increase) and 82% that family history is a risk factor. A further 78% thought electronic prompts during consultation would encourage PCRMP guideline usage and 75% had never been offered a PSA test and prostate cancer educational course, of which 73% would like to attend a course. Only 23% were aware of the latest PSA screening evidence and 94% would like an update. CONCLUSIONS Participating GPs seem to be well informed but need more information and tools to help follow recommended guidance. In particular, increased awareness of PCRMP guidelines especially by automated methods, further educational courses and evidence updates would be beneficial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Sutton
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - J Melia
- Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - M Kirby
- University of Hertfordshire and the Prostate Centre, London, UK
| | - J Graffy
- NIHR Primary Care Research Network - East of England, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - S Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is currently no national screening programme for prostate cancer in England, but eligible men can request a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test from their general practitioner (GP). There are no routinely available data to monitor the extent of PSA testing and referral. AIM The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of PSA testing in general practice and subsequent patterns of referral. DESIGN AND SETTING Data obtained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) for men aged 45-84 years who had a PSA test during 2010-2011, registered in practices in England with linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. METHOD Patient data were linked to previous tests and consultations. Rates of PSA testing and proportions of men retested and referred to secondary care were calculated. RESULTS Overall, 8.74 (95% CI 8.67-8.82) of men per 100 person-years were tested at least once in 2010, and 9.45 (95% CI 9.37-9.53) in 2011. Rates increased with age and decreased with increasing level of deprivation. Of the 53,069 men tested in 2010, 11,289 (21.3%) had a previous PSA test within the past 12 months. Of men with raised PSA according to age specific guidelines, 22.4% (2113/9425) were referred to secondary care within 14 days, with 36% of the remainder retested within 6 months. CONCLUSIONS Rates of PSA testing have increased compared with earlier studies; the data suggest that many GPs are retesting men with raised PSA rather than referring immediately. More routine data on PSA testing, including reasons for testing, and subsequent management and outcomes, are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - J Melia
- Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - J Sutton
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - C Mathews
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - M Kirby
- Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Hertfordshire and the Prostate Centre, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, Halloran SP, Smith SG, McGregor LM, Vart G, Howe R, Snowball J, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, Smith S, Thomas MC, Counsell N, Morris S, Duffy SW, Hackshaw A, Moss S, Atkin W, Raine R. Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2016; 387:751-9. [PMID: 26680217 PMCID: PMC4761689 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01154-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening. METHODS All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60-74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July-August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020. FINDINGS As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163,525) and 2 (n=150,417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04-1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04-1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94-1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03-1·11, p=0·001). INTERPRETATION Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane Wardle
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Christian von Wagner
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Ines Kralj-Hans
- Department of Biostatistics, King's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Stephen P Halloran
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, UK; Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, and University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
| | - Samuel G Smith
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK; Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Lesley M McGregor
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Gemma Vart
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rosemary Howe
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Julia Snowball
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, UK
| | - Graham Handley
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme North East Hub, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK
| | - Richard F Logan
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Eastern Hub, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
| | - Sandra Rainbow
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, London Hub, Northwick Park and St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, Middlesex, UK
| | - Steve Smith
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Midlands and North West Hub, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Hospital of St Cross, Rugby, UK
| | - Mary C Thomas
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Nicholas Counsell
- Cancer Research Centre UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Steve Morris
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Stephen W Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Allan Hackshaw
- Cancer Research Centre UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Wendy Atkin
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Rosalind Raine
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Raine R, Duffy SW, Wardle J, Solmi F, Morris S, Howe R, Kralj-Hans I, Snowball J, Counsell N, Moss S, Hackshaw A, von Wagner C, Vart G, McGregor LM, Smith SG, Halloran S, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, Smith S, Thomas MC, Atkin W. Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening. Br J Cancer 2016; 114:321-6. [PMID: 26742011 PMCID: PMC4742577 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.413] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2015] [Revised: 10/20/2015] [Accepted: 10/24/2015] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of screening in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), potentially leading to inequalities in outcomes. We tested whether endorsement of bowel cancer screening by an individual's general practice (GP endorsement; GPE) reduced this gradient. METHODS A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Over 20 days, individuals eligible for screening in England from 6480 participating general practices were randomly allocated to receive a GP-endorsed or the standard invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. RESULTS We enrolled 265,434 individuals. Uptake was 58.2% in the intervention arm and 57.5% in the control arm. After adjusting for age, sex, hub and screening episode, GPE increased the overall odds of uptake (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10), but did not affect its socioeconomic gradient. We estimated that implementing GPE could result in up to 165 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and 61 cancers detected, and a small one-off cost to modify the standard invitation (£78,000). CONCLUSIONS Although GPE did not improve its socioeconomic gradient, it offers a low-cost approach to enhancing overall screening uptake within the NHS BCSP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rosalind Raine
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Stephen W Duffy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Jane Wardle
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Francesca Solmi
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Stephen Morris
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Rosemary Howe
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, UK
| | - Ines Kralj-Hans
- Department of Biostatistics, King's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London SE5 8AF, UK
| | - Julia Snowball
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford GU2 7YS, UK
| | - Nicholas Counsell
- Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Allan Hackshaw
- Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Christian von Wagner
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Gemma Vart
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Lesley M McGregor
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Samuel G Smith
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
- Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Stephen Halloran
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford GU2 7YS, UK
- Department of Biochemistry and Physiology, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
| | - Graham Handley
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme North East Hub, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NE9 6SX, UK
| | - Richard F Logan
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Eastern Hub, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
| | - Sandra Rainbow
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme London Hub, Northwick Park and St Mark's Hospitals NHS Trust, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, UK
| | - Steve Smith
- NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Midlands and North West Hub, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Hospital of St Cross, Rugby CV22 5PX, UK
| | - Mary C Thomas
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Wendy Atkin
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
McCormack VA, Burton A, dos-Santos-Silva I, Hipwell JH, Dickens C, Salem D, Kamal R, Hartman M, Lee CPL, Chia KS, Ozmen V, Aribal ME, Flugelman AA, Lajous M, Lopez-Riduara R, Rice M, Romieu I, Ursin G, Qureshi S, Ma H, Lee E, van Gils CH, Wanders JOP, Vinayak S, Ndumia R, Allen S, Vinnicombe S, Moss S, Won Lee J, Kim J, Pereira A, Garmendia ML, Sirous R, Sirous M, Peplonska B, Bukowska A, Tamimi RM, Bertrand K, Nagata C, Kwong A, Vachon C, Scott C, Perez-Gomez B, Pollan M, Maskarinec G, Giles G, Hopper J, Stone J, Rajaram N, Teo SH, Mariapun S, Yaffe MJ, Schüz J, Chiarelli AM, Linton L, Boyd NF. International Consortium on Mammographic Density: Methodology and population diversity captured across 22 countries. Cancer Epidemiol 2016; 40:141-51. [PMID: 26724463 PMCID: PMC4738079 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2015] [Revised: 11/12/2015] [Accepted: 11/30/2015] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
Mammographic density (MD) is a quantitative trait, measurable in all women, and is among the strongest markers of breast cancer risk. The population-based epidemiology of MD has revealed genetic, lifestyle and societal/environmental determinants, but studies have largely been conducted in women with similar westernized lifestyles living in countries with high breast cancer incidence rates. To benefit from the heterogeneity in risk factors and their combinations worldwide, we created an International Consortium on Mammographic Density (ICMD) to pool individual-level epidemiological and MD data from general population studies worldwide. ICMD aims to characterize determinants of MD more precisely, and to evaluate whether they are consistent across populations worldwide. We included 11755 women, from 27 studies in 22 countries, on whom individual-level risk factor data were pooled and original mammographic images were re-read for ICMD to obtain standardized comparable MD data. In the present article, we present (i) the rationale for this consortium; (ii) characteristics of the studies and women included; and (iii) study methodology to obtain comparable MD data from original re-read films. We also highlight the risk factor heterogeneity captured by such an effort and, thus, the unique insight the pooled study promises to offer through wider exposure ranges, different confounding structures and enhanced power for sub-group analyses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Valerie A McCormack
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
| | - Anya Burton
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Isabel dos-Santos-Silva
- Dept of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - John H Hipwell
- Centre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, UK
| | | | | | - Rasha Kamal
- Woman Imaging Unit, Radiodiagnosis Department, Kasr El Aini, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine and Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Charmaine Pei Ling Lee
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine and Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore; NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Kee-Seng Chia
- NUS Graduate School for Integrative Sciences and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | | | | | | | - Martín Lajous
- Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA; Center for Research on Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Ruy Lopez-Riduara
- Center for Research on Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico
| | - Megan Rice
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | - Isabelle Romieu
- Section of Nutrition and Metabolism, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Giske Ursin
- Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway; Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Samera Qureshi
- Norwegian Center for Minority Health Research (NAKMI), Oslo, Norway
| | - Huiyan Ma
- Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Duarte, USA
| | - Eunjung Lee
- Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Carla H van Gils
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Johanna O P Wanders
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Rose Ndumia
- Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Steve Allen
- Department of Imaging, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Sarah Vinnicombe
- Division of Cancer Research, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, UK
| | | | - Jisun Kim
- Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea
| | - Ana Pereira
- Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology, University of Chile, Chile
| | | | - Reza Sirous
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | - Mehri Sirous
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| | | | | | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA
| | | | | | - Ava Kwong
- Division of Breast Surgery, The University of Hong Kong Faculty of Medicine, and Department of Surgery, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China
| | - Celine Vachon
- Dept Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Christopher Scott
- Dept Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Beatriz Perez-Gomez
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
| | - Marina Pollan
- Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Instituto de Salud Carlos III and CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Graham Giles
- Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia; School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - John Hopper
- School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Australia
| | - Jennifer Stone
- Centre for Genetic Origins of Health and Disease, University of Western Australia, Australia
| | - Nadia Rajaram
- Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | - Shivaani Mariapun
- Breast Cancer Research Group, University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | | | - Joachim Schüz
- Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
| | - Anna M Chiarelli
- Ontario Breast Screening Program, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Canada
| | - Linda Linton
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
McGorum BC, Scholes S, Milne EM, Eaton SL, Wishart TM, Poxton IR, Moss S, Wernery U, Davey T, Harris JB, Pirie RS. Equine grass sickness, but not botulism, causes autonomic and enteric neurodegeneration and increases soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment receptor protein expression within neuronal perikarya. Equine Vet J 2016; 48:786-791. [PMID: 26640078 DOI: 10.1111/evj.12543] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2015] [Accepted: 11/24/2015] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY Equine grass sickness (EGS) is of unknown aetiology. Despite some evidence suggesting that it represents a toxico-infection with Clostridium botulinum types C and/or D, the effect of EGS on the functional targets of botulinum neurotoxins, namely the soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment receptor (SNARE) proteins, is unknown. Further, while it is commonly stated that, unlike EGS, equine botulism is not associated with autonomic and enteric neurodegeneration, this has not been definitively assessed. OBJECTIVES To determine: 1) whether botulism causes autonomic and enteric neurodegeneration; and 2) the effect of EGS on the expression of SNARE proteins within cranial cervical ganglion (CCG) and enteric neuronal perikarya. STUDY DESIGN Descriptive study. METHODS Light microscopy was used to compare the morphology of neurons in haematoxylin-eosin stained sections of CCG and ileum from 6 EGS horses, 5 botulism horses and 6 control horses. Immunohistochemistry was used to compare the expression of synaptosomal-associated protein-25, synaptobrevin (Syb) and syntaxin within CCG neurons, and of Syb in enteric neurons, from horses with EGS, horses with botulism and control horses. The concentrations of these SNARE proteins in extracts of CCG from EGS and control horses were compared using quantitative fluorescent western blotting. RESULTS EGS, but not botulism, was associated with autonomic and enteric neurodegeneration and with increased immunoreactivity for SNARE proteins within neuronal perikarya. Quantitative fluorescent western blotting confirmed increased concentrations of synaptosomal-associated protein-25, Syb and syntaxin within CCG extracts from EGS vs. control horses, with the increases in the latter 2 proteins being statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS The occurrence of autonomic and enteric neurodegeneration, and increased expression of SNARE proteins within neuronal perikarya, in EGS but not botulism, suggests that EGS may not be caused by botulinum neurotoxins. Further investigation of the aetiology of EGS is therefore warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B C McGorum
- Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK.
| | - S Scholes
- SAC Consulting Veterinary Services, Penicuik, Midlothian, UK
| | - E M Milne
- Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK
| | - S L Eaton
- Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK
| | - T M Wishart
- Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK.,Euan MacDonald Centre for Motor Neuron Disease Research, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK
| | - I R Poxton
- Edinburgh Infectious Diseases, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK
| | - S Moss
- Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK
| | - U Wernery
- Central Veterinary Research Laboratory, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
| | - T Davey
- Electron Microscopy Research Services, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - J B Harris
- Medical Toxicology Centre and Institute of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - R S Pirie
- Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Roslin, UK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Sonmez-Ajtai S, Moss S. P91 Post-infective obliterative bronchiolitis acquired beyond the first 3 years of life. Thorax 2015. [DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207770.228] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
|
39
|
Sharp L, Cotton SC, Cruickshank ME, Gray NM, Neal K, Rothnie K, Thornton AJ, Walker LG, Little J, Cruickshank M, Murray G, Parkin D, Smart L, Walker E, Waugh N, Avis M, Chilvers C, Fielding K, Hammond R, Jenkins D, Johnson J, Neal K, Seth R, Whynes D, Duncan I, Robertson A, Little J, Sharp L, Russell I, Walker L, Anthony B, Bell S, Bowie A, Brown K, Brown J, Chew K, Cochran C, Cotton S, Dean J, Dunn K, Edwards J, Evans D, Fenty J, Finlayson A, Gallagher M, Gray N, Heddle M, Innes A, Jobson D, Keillor M, MacGregor J, Mackenzie S, Mackie A, McPherson G, Okorocha I, Reilly M, Rodgers J, Thornton A, Yeats R, Alexander L, Buchanan L, Henderson S, Iterbeke T, Lucas S, Manderson G, Nicol S, Reid G, Robinson C, Sandilands T, Adrian M, Al-Sahab A, Bentley E, Brook H, Bushby C, Cannon R, Cooper B, Dowell R, Dunderdale M, Gabrawi, Guo L, Heideman L, Jones S, Lawson S, Philips Z, Platt C, Prabhakaran S, Rippin J, Thompson R, Williams E, Woolley C, Cotton S, Harrild K, Norrie J, Sharp L, Day N, Marteau T, Parmar M, Patnick J, Woodman C, Altman D, Moss S, Wells M. Long-Term Worries after Colposcopy: Which Women Are at Increased Risk? Womens Health Issues 2015; 25:517-27. [DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2015.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2014] [Revised: 03/19/2015] [Accepted: 04/06/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
40
|
Evans DG, Thomas S, Caunt J, Roberts L, Howell A, Wilson M, Fox R, Sibbering DM, Moss S, Wallis MG, Eccles DM, Duffy S. Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35-39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02). Fam Cancer 2015; 13:13-21. [PMID: 23733252 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-013-9661-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
Although there have been encouraging recent studies showing a potential benefit from annual mammography in women aged 40-49 years of age with an elevated breast cancer risk due to family history there is little evidence of efficacy in women aged <40 years of age. A prospective study (FH02) has been developed to assess the efficacy of mammography screening in women aged 35-39 years of age with a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥ 17 % who are not receiving MRI screening. Retrospective analyses from five centres with robust recall systems identified 47 breast cancers (n = 12 in situ) with an interval cancer rate of 15/47 (32%). Invasive tumour size, lymph node status and current vital status were all significantly better than in two control groups of unscreened women (including those with a family history) recruited to the POSH study. Further evaluation of the prospective arm of FH02 is required to assess the potential added value of digital mammography and the cancer incidence rates in moderate and high risk women in order to inform cost effectiveness analyses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D G Evans
- Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Trust, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Affiliation(s)
- Fritz Schröder
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden
| | - Sigrid Carlsson
- Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, Goteborg, Sweden; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Monique Roobol
- Department of Urology, Erasmus University Medical Center, 3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Anssi Auvinen
- School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Selkirk CG, Mikropoulos C, Saya S, Bancroft E, Dadaev T, Brendler C, Page E, Leongamornlert DA, Taylor N, Saunders EJ, Cieza-Borrela C, study collaborators TIMPACT, Moss S, Kote-Jarai Z, Helfand BT, Eeles RA. MP86-11 PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN VELOCITY AS A PREDICTIVE BIOMARKER IN A PROSPECTIVE PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING STUDY OF MEN WITH GENETIC PREDISPOSITION. J Urol 2015. [DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1920] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
43
|
Nikolaidis PT, Ingebrigtsen J, Póvoas SC, Moss S, Torres-Luque G. Physical and physiological characteristics in male team handball players by playing position - Does age matter? J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2015; 55:297-304. [PMID: 25303066] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
AIM The purpose of this study was to examine the variation in physical and physiological characteristics according to playing position in adolescent and adult male team handball (TH) players. METHODS Adolescent (N.=57, aged 14.9±1.4 yr) and adult (N.=39, 26.6±5.7 yr) players were examined for anthropometric characteristics, somatotype and body composition, and performed the physical working capacity test, a force-velocity test, the Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT), sit-and-reach test, handgrip strength test, squat jump (SJ), countermovement vertical jump without (CMJ) and with arm-swing, and a 30-s Bosco test. Eccentric utilization ratio (EUR) was calculated as the ratio CMJ to SJ. RESULTS In adult players, there were significant differences between wings and the other positions with regard to anthropometric and body composition parameters (body mass, -17.9% to -13.2%; height, -5.3% to -4.3%; and fat-free mass, -13.7% to -9.9%) and anaerobic power assessed by WAnT (peak power, -20.5% to -15.2%; and mean power, -20% to -14.8%); however, these characteristics did not differ significantly in adolescents, in which the only statistically significant difference was found between goalkeepers and the other positions in EUR (+8.1%). CONCLUSION Therefore, the differences in physical and physiological characteristics between playing positions are age-dependent. As adult players in this study were taken from players competing in the top Greek league, findings could serve as a base for talent identification and development for future studies. Moreover, knowledge about positional differences might enhance the ability to make tailored position-specific training programs among adult and adolescent players in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P T Nikolaidis
- Department of Physical and Cultural Education, Hellenic Army Academy, Athens, Greece -
| | - J Ingebrigtsen
- Department of Sport, Centre for Practical Knowledge, University of Nordland, Bodø, Norway
| | - S C Póvoas
- Research Centre in Sports Sciences, Health Sciences and Human Development, CIDESD, University Institute of Maia, ISMAI, Maia, Portugal
| | - S Moss
- Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Chester, Chester, UK
| | - G Torres-Luque
- Area of Corporal Express, Faculty of Humanities and Education Sciences, University of Jaen, Jaen, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Mikropoulos C, Selkirk C, Saya S, Bancroft E, Dadaev T, Brendler C, Saunders E, Leongamornlert D, Page E, Borrella CC, study Collaborators And Steering Group TIMPACT, Moss S, Kote-Jarai Z, Helfand B, Eeles RA. Prostate-specific antigen velocity as a predictive biomarker in a prospective prostate cancer screening study (IMPACT study). J Clin Oncol 2015. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2015.33.7_suppl.16] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
16 Background: We retrospectively assessed the clinical application of Prostate Specific Antigen Velocity (PSA V) in the IMPACT study (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in men at higher genetic risk and controls). This is a case-control prostate cancer (PrCa) screening study for men with a known genetic predisposition to PrCa; participants with a single PSA reading above 3ng/ml are offered diagnostic TRUS prostate biopsies (PB). Methods: We calculated PSA velocity (PSA V) using all three validated methods, including the arithmetic mean, the linear regression and the first and last readings equations. Pearson chi-square test was used to compare PSA V between four genetic groups: BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 negative controls and BRCA2 carriers and BRCA2 negative controls. Results: PSA V data were evaluated in 191 men who underwent a PB with a total of 57 PrCas diagnosed. PSA V using both a threshold of 0ng/ml/year and 0.75ng/ml/year in any of the three methods was not predictive of PrCa diagnosis in BRCA1/2 controls and BRCA1 carriers. Conversely, BRCA2 carriers with a PSA V over 0.75ng/ml/year (by linear regression) were 5 times more likely to be diagnosed with PrCa [95%CI=1.5-14; p=0.003]. Interestingly PSA V using linear regression was predictive of clinically significant tumours as defined by Gleason Score (GS) >= 7. Regardless of their genetic status, men with a PSA V over 0.75/ng/ml/year were 3 times more likely to have a clinically significant PrCa [95% CI: 1.006-11.107; p=0.045] whereas men with a BRCA2 mutation were 12 times more likely [95%CI: 1.1-98; p=0.039]. Conclusions: PSA V is an important tool for identifying which men with a BRCA2 mutation would benefit from a prostatic biopsy and could be incorporated into a predictive model, along with the total PSA value. PSA V also predicts for tumour aggressiveness regardless of genetic predisposition, but more so for those with a known high risk gene mutation. Clinical trial information: NCT00261456.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sibel Saya
- Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Tokhir Dadaev
- The Institute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | | | - Edward Saunders
- The Institute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Daniel Leongamornlert
- The Institute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | - Elizabeth Page
- The Institute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Sue Moss
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Zsofia Kote-Jarai
- The Institute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| | | | - Ros A. Eeles
- The Institute of Cancer Research, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Bergdahl AG, Holmberg E, Moss S, Hugosson J. Corrigendum to "Incidence of Prostate Cancer After Termination of Screening in a Population-based Randomised Screening Trial" [Eur Urol 2013;64:703-9]. Eur Urol 2015; 68:e46. [PMID: 26149731 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Grenabo Bergdahl
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.
| | - Erik Holmberg
- Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| | - Sue Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute for Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Jonas Hugosson
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Bancroft EK, Page EC, Castro E, Lilja H, Vickers A, Sjoberg D, Assel M, Foster CS, Mitchell G, Drew K, Mæhle L, Axcrona K, Evans DG, Bulman B, Eccles D, McBride D, van Asperen C, Vasen H, Kiemeney LA, Ringelberg J, Cybulski C, Wokolorczyk D, Selkirk C, Hulick PJ, Bojesen A, Skytte AB, Lam J, Taylor L, Oldenburg R, Cremers R, Verhaegh G, van Zelst-Stams WA, Oosterwijk JC, Blanco I, Salinas M, Cook J, Rosario DJ, Buys S, Conner T, Ausems MG, Ong KR, Hoffman J, Domchek S, Powers J, Teixeira MR, Maia S, Foulkes WD, Taherian N, Ruijs M, Helderman-van den Enden AT, Izatt L, Davidson R, Adank MA, Walker L, Schmutzler R, Tucker K, Kirk J, Hodgson S, Harris M, Douglas F, Lindeman GJ, Zgajnar J, Tischkowitz M, Clowes VE, Susman R, Ramón y Cajal T, Patcher N, Gadea N, Spigelman A, van Os T, Liljegren A, Side L, Brewer C, Brady AF, Donaldson A, Stefansdottir V, Friedman E, Chen-Shtoyerman R, Amor DJ, Copakova L, Barwell J, Giri VN, Murthy V, Nicolai N, Teo SH, Greenhalgh L, Strom S, Henderson A, McGrath J, Gallagher D, Aaronson N, Ardern-Jones A, Bangma C, Dearnaley D, Costello P, Eyfjord J, Rothwell J, Falconer A, Gronberg H, Hamdy FC, Johannsson O, Khoo V, Kote-Jarai Z, Lubinski J, Axcrona U, Melia J, McKinley J, Mitra AV, Moynihan C, Rennert G, Suri M, Wilson P, Killick E, Moss S, Eeles RA. Targeted prostate cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the initial screening round of the IMPACT study. Eur Urol 2014; 66:489-99. [PMID: 24484606 PMCID: PMC4105321 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 173] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2013] [Accepted: 01/02/2014] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Men with germline breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) or breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene mutations have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer (PCa) than noncarriers. IMPACT (Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and controls) is an international consortium of 62 centres in 20 countries evaluating the use of targeted PCa screening in men with BRCA1/2 mutations. OBJECTIVE To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease. PATIENT SUMMARY In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth K Bancroft
- Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Oncogenetics Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Elena Castro
- Oncogenetics Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, Madrid, Spain
| | - Hans Lilja
- Departments of Laboratory Medicine, Surgery, and Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Daniel Sjoberg
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Melissa Assel
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Gillian Mitchell
- Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kate Drew
- Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | | | - D Gareth Evans
- Genetic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Barbara Bulman
- Genetic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Diana Eccles
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - Donna McBride
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | | | - Hans Vasen
- Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Janneke Ringelberg
- Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Cezary Cybulski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Dominika Wokolorczyk
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Christina Selkirk
- Center for Medical Genetics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA
| | - Peter J Hulick
- Center for Medical Genetics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA; Priztker School of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | | | - Jimmy Lam
- Department of Urology, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, South Australia, Australia
| | - Louise Taylor
- Department of Urology, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, South Australia, Australia
| | | | - Ruben Cremers
- Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Gerald Verhaegh
- Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jan C Oosterwijk
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Ignacio Blanco
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalonian Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Monica Salinas
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalonian Institute of Oncology, L'Hospitalet, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Jackie Cook
- Sheffield Clinical Genetics Service, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield, UK
| | | | - Saundra Buys
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Tom Conner
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Margreet G Ausems
- Department of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Kai-ren Ong
- Clinical Genetics Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Jonathan Hoffman
- Clinical Genetics Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Susan Domchek
- Basser Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Jacquelyn Powers
- Basser Research Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Manuel R Teixeira
- Genetics Department and Research Center, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal; Biomedical Sciences Institute (ICBAS), Porto University, Porto, Portugal
| | - Sofia Maia
- Genetics Department and Research Center, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal
| | - William D Foulkes
- McGill Program in Cancer Genetics, Departments of Oncology and Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Nassim Taherian
- McGill Program in Cancer Genetics, Departments of Oncology and Human Genetics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Marielle Ruijs
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Louise Izatt
- South East Thames Genetics Service, London, UK, Guy's Hospital, London, UK
| | - Rosemarie Davidson
- Duncan Guthrie Institute of Medical Genetics, Yorkhill NHS Trust, Glasgow, UK
| | - Muriel A Adank
- VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center of Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Kathy Tucker
- Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia; Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Judy Kirk
- Familial Cancer Service, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Sydney Medical School (University of Sydney) at Westmead Millennium Institute, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Marion Harris
- Familial Cancer Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Fiona Douglas
- Northern Genetics Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Geoffrey J Lindeman
- Familial Cancer Centre, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Stem Cells and Cancer Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Virginia E Clowes
- Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Rachel Susman
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia
| | | | - Nicholas Patcher
- Genetic Services of WA, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Subiaco, WA, Australia; Department of Paediatrics, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia
| | - Neus Gadea
- Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Allan Spigelman
- Hunter Family Cancer Service, Waratah, New South Wales, Australia; University of New South Wales, St. Vincent's Clinical School, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia; Hereditary Cancer Clinic, The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St. Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Theo van Os
- Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Annelie Liljegren
- Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Lucy Side
- NE Thames Regional Genetics Service, Institute of Child Health, London, UK
| | - Carole Brewer
- Peninsular Genetics, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK; Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
| | - Angela F Brady
- North West Thames Regional Genetics Service, Kennedy-Galton Centre, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - David J Amor
- Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Julian Barwell
- University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; University Hospitals Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Veda N Giri
- Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | | | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation, Subang Jaya Medical Centre, Selangor, Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
| | - Lynn Greenhalgh
- Clinical Genetics, Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Sara Strom
- The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Alex Henderson
- Northern Genetics Service, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | | | - Neil Aaronson
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Audrey Ardern-Jones
- Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Chris Bangma
- Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - David Dearnaley
- Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Oncogenetics Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Philandra Costello
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, UK
| | - Jorunn Eyfjord
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - Jeanette Rothwell
- Genetic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | - Freddie C Hamdy
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford, UK
| | - Oskar Johannsson
- Landspitali-the National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - Vincent Khoo
- Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - Jan Lubinski
- International Hereditary Cancer Center, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | | | - Jane Melia
- The University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Joanne McKinley
- Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Anita V Mitra
- Oncogenetics Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Clare Moynihan
- Oncogenetics Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Gad Rennert
- CHS National Cancer Control Center, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
| | | | | | - Emma Killick
- Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Oncogenetics Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - Sue Moss
- Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Oncogenetics Team, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK; Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology Unit, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Seipel AH, Delahunt B, Samaratunga H, Amin M, Barton J, Berney DM, Billis A, Cheng L, Comperat E, Evans A, Fine SW, Grignon D, Humphrey PA, Magi-Galluzzi C, Montironi R, Sesterhenn I, Srigley JR, Trpkov K, van der Kwast T, Varma M, Zhou M, Ahmad A, Moss S, Egevad L. Diagnostic criteria for ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variability among 20 expert uropathologists. Histopathology 2014; 65:216-27. [PMID: 24467262 DOI: 10.1111/his.12382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2013] [Accepted: 01/23/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
AIMS Ductal adenocarcinoma of the prostate (DAC) is clinically important, because its behaviour may differ from that of acinar adenocarcinoma. Our aims were to investigate the interobserver variability of this diagnosis among experts in uropathology and to define diagnostic criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS Photomicrographs of 21 carcinomas with ductal features were distributed among 20 genitourinary pathologists from eight countries. DAC was diagnosed by 18 observers (mean 13.2 cases, range 6-19). In 11 (52%) cases, a 2/3 consensus was reached for a diagnosis of DAC, and in five (24%) there was consensus against. In DAC, the respondents reported papillary architecture (86%), stratification of nuclei (82%), high-grade nuclear features (54%), tall columnar epithelium (53%), elongated nuclei (52%), cribriform architecture (40%), and necrosis (7%). The most important diagnostic feature reported for DAC was papillary architecture (59%), whereas nuclear and cellular features were considered to be most important in only 2-11% of cases. The most common differential diagnoses were intraductal prostate cancer (52%), high-grade PIN (37%), and acinar adenocarcinoma (17%). The most common reason for not diagnosing DAC was lack of typical architecture (33%). CONCLUSIONS Papillary architecture was the most useful diagnostic feature of DAC, and nuclear and cellular features were considered to be less important.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda H Seipel
- Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Sovio U, Li J, Aitken Z, Humphreys K, Czene K, Moss S, Hall P, McCormack V, dos-Santos-Silva I. Comparison of fully and semi-automated area-based methods for measuring mammographic density and predicting breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer 2014; 110:1908-16. [PMID: 24556624 PMCID: PMC3974092 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.82] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2013] [Revised: 01/17/2014] [Accepted: 01/20/2014] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mammographic density is a strong risk factor for breast cancer but the lack of valid fully automated methods for quantifying it has precluded its use in clinical and screening settings. We compared the performance of a recently developed automated approach, based on the public domain ImageJ programme, to the well-established semi-automated Cumulus method. METHODS We undertook a case-control study within the intervention arm of the Age Trial, in which ∼54,000 British women were offered annual mammography at ages 40-49 years. A total of 299 breast cancer cases diagnosed during follow-up and 422 matched (on screening centre, date of birth and dates of screenings) controls were included. Medio-lateral oblique (MLO) images taken closest to age 41 and at least one year before the index case's diagnosis were digitised for each participant. Cumulus readings were performed in the left MLO and ImageJ-based readings in both left and right MLOs. Conditional logistic regression was used to examine density-breast cancer associations. RESULTS The association between density readings taken from one single MLO and breast cancer risk was weaker for the ImageJ-based method than for Cumulus (age-body mass index-adjusted odds ratio (OR) per one s.d. increase in percent density (95% CI): 1.52 (1.24-1.86) and 1.61 (1.33-1.94), respectively). The ImageJ-based density-cancer association strengthened when the mean of left-right MLO readings was used: OR=1.61 (1.31-1.98). CONCLUSIONS The mean of left-right MLO readings yielded by the ImageJ-based method was as strong a predictor of risk as Cumulus readings from a single MLO image. The ImageJ-based method, using the mean of two measurements, is a valid automated alternative to Cumulus for measuring density in analogue films.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- U Sovio
- Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - J Li
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117597, Singapore
- Human Genetics Lab, Genome Institute of Singapore, 60 Biopolis Street, 02-01, Singapore 138672, Singapore
| | - Z Aitken
- Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
| | - K Humphreys
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Box 281, Stockholm 17177, Sweden
| | - K Czene
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Box 281, Stockholm 17177, Sweden
| | - S Moss
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Charterhouse Square, London EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - P Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Box 281, Stockholm 17177, Sweden
| | - V McCormack
- Environment and Radiation Section, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon, France
| | - I dos-Santos-Silva
- Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Grenabo Bergdahl A, Holmberg E, Moss S, Hugosson J. Incidence of Prostate Cancer After Termination of Screening in a Population-based Randomised Screening Trial. Eur Urol 2013; 64:703-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.024] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2013] [Accepted: 05/08/2013] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
50
|
Duffy SW, Mackay J, Thomas S, Anderson E, Chen THH, Ellis I, Evans G, Fielder H, Fox R, Gui G, Macmillan D, Moss S, Rogers C, Sibbering M, Wallis M, Warren R, Watson E, Whynes D, Allgood P, Caunt J. Evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women aged 40-49 years with a moderate family history of breast cancer: a single-arm cohort study. Health Technol Assess 2013; 17:vii-xiv, 1-95. [PMID: 23489892 DOI: 10.3310/hta17110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Women with a significant family history of breast cancer are often offered more intensive and earlier surveillance than is offered to the general population in the National Breast Screening Programme. Up to now, this strategy has not been fully evaluated. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the benefit of mammographic surveillance for women aged 40-49 years at moderate risk of breast cancer due to family history. The study is referred to as FH01. DESIGN This was a single-arm cohort study with recruitment taking place between January 2003 and February 2007. Recruits were women aged < 50 years with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer conferring at least a 3% risk of breast cancer between ages 40 and 49 years. The women were offered annual mammography for at least 5 years and observed for the occurrence of breast cancer during the surveillance period. The age group 40-44 years was targeted so that they would still be aged < 50 years after 5 years of surveillance. SETTING Seventy-four surveillance centres in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS A total of 6710 women, 94% of whom were aged < 45 years at recruitment, with a family history of breast cancer estimated to imply at least a 3% risk of the disease between the ages of 40 and 50 years. INTERVENTIONS Annual mammography for at least 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary study end point was the predicted risk of death from breast cancer as estimated from the size, lymph node status and grade of the tumours diagnosed. This was compared with the control group from the UK Breast Screening Age Trial (Age Trial), adjusting for the different underlying incidence in the two populations. RESULTS As of December 2010, there were 165 breast cancers diagnosed in 37,025 person-years of observation and 30,556 mammographic screening episodes. Of these, 122 (74%) were diagnosed at screening. The cancers included 44 (27%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ. There were 19 predicted deaths in 37,025 person-years in FH01, with an estimated incidence of 6.3 per 1000 per year. The corresponding figures for the Age Trial control group were 204 predicted deaths in 622,127 person-years and an incidence of 2.4 per 1000 per year. This gave an estimated 40% reduction in breast cancer mortality (relative risk = 0.60; 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.98; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Annual mammography in women aged 40-49 years with a significant family history of breast or ovarian cancer is both clinically effective in reducing breast cancer mortality and cost-effective. There is a need to further standardise familial risk assessment, to research the impact of digital mammography and to clarify the role of breast density in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION National Research Register N0484114809. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 17, No. 11. See the HTA programme website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S W Duffy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|