| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Ombrello, MJ, et al.
(författare)
-
Genetic architecture distinguishes systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis from other forms of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: clinical and therapeutic implications
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Annals of the rheumatic diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 76:5, s. 906-913
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a heterogeneous group of conditions unified by the presence of chronic childhood arthritis without an identifiable cause. Systemic JIA (sJIA) is a rare form of JIA characterised by systemic inflammation. sJIA is distinguished from other forms of JIA by unique clinical features and treatment responses that are similar to autoinflammatory diseases. However, approximately half of children with sJIA develop destructive, long-standing arthritis that appears similar to other forms of JIA. Using genomic approaches, we sought to gain novel insights into the pathophysiology of sJIA and its relationship with other forms of JIA.MethodsWe performed a genome-wide association study of 770 children with sJIA collected in nine countries by the International Childhood Arthritis Genetics Consortium. Single nucleotide polymorphisms were tested for association with sJIA. Weighted genetic risk scores were used to compare the genetic architecture of sJIA with other JIA subtypes.ResultsThe major histocompatibility complex locus and a locus on chromosome 1 each showed association with sJIA exceeding the threshold for genome-wide significance, while 23 other novel loci were suggestive of association with sJIA. Using a combination of genetic and statistical approaches, we found no evidence of shared genetic architecture between sJIA and other common JIA subtypes.ConclusionsThe lack of shared genetic risk factors between sJIA and other JIA subtypes supports the hypothesis that sJIA is a unique disease process and argues for a different classification framework. Research to improve sJIA therapy should target its unique genetics and specific pathophysiological pathways.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Godtman, Rebecka Arnsrud, 1981, et al.
(författare)
-
Intervention-related Deaths in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Urology Open Science. - : Elsevier BV. - 2666-1691 .- 2666-1683. ; 34, s. 27-32
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Identification of intervention-related deaths is important for an accurate assessment of the ratio of benefit to harm in screening trials. Objective: To investigate intervention-related deaths by study arm in the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening (ERSPC). Design, setting, and participants: ERSPC is a multicenter trial initiated in the 1990s to investigate whether screening on the basis of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can decrease prostate cancer mortality. The present study included men in the core age group (55-69 yr: screening group n = 112 553, control group n = 128 681) with 16-yr follow-up. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Causes of death among men with prostate cancer in ERSPC were predominantly evaluated by independent national committees via review of medical records according to a predefined algorithm. Intervention-related deaths were defined as deaths caused by complications during the screening procedure, treatment, or follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used for the results. Results and limitations: In total, 34 deaths were determined to be intervention-related, of which 21 were in the screening arm and 13 in the control arm. The overall risk of intervention-related death was 1.41 (95% confidence interval 0.99-1.99) per 10 000 randomized men for both arms combined and varied among centers from 0 to 7.0 per 10 000 randomized men. A limitation of this study is that differences in procedures among centers decreased the comparability of the results. Conclusions: Intervention-related deaths were rare in ERSPC. Monitoring of intervention-related deaths in screening trials is important for assessment of harms. Patient summary: We investigated deaths due to screening or treatment to assess harm in a trial of prostate cancer screening. Few such deaths were identified. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creative- commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Remmers, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Relationship Between Baseline Prostate-specific Antigen on Cancer Detection and Prostate Cancer Death: Long-term Follow-up from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - 0302-2838. ; 84:5, s. 503-509
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European Association of Urology guidelines recommend a risk-based strategy for prostate cancer screening based on the first prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and age.Objective: To analyze the impact of the first PSA level on prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in a population-based screening trial (repeat screening every 2-4 yr). Design, setting, and participants: We evaluated 25 589 men aged 55-59 yr, 16 898 men aged 60-64 yr, and 12 936 men aged 65-69 yr who attended at least one screening visit in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial (screening arm: repeat PSA testing every 2-4 yr and biopsy in cases with elevated PSA; control arm: no active screening offered) during 16-yr follow-up (FU).Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We assessed the actuarial probability for any PCa and for clinically significant (cs)PCa (Gleason >7). Cox proportional-hazards regression was performed to assess whether the association between baseline PSA andPCSM was comparable for all age groups. A Lorenz curve was computed to assess the association between baseline PSA and PCSM for men aged 60-61 yr.Results and limitations: The overall actuarial probability at 16 yr ranged from 12% to 16% for any PCa and from 3.7% to 5.7% for csPCa across the age groups. The actuarial proba-bility of csPCa at 16 yr ranged from 1.2-1.5% for men with PSA <1.0 ng/ml to 13.3-13.8% for men with PSA >3.0 ng/ml. The association between baseline PSA and PCSM differed marginally among the three age groups. A Lorenz curve for men aged 60-61 yr showed that 92% of lethal PCa cases occurred among those with PSA above the median (1.21 ng/ ml). In addition, for men initially screened at age 60-61 yr with baseline PSA <2 ng/ml, further continuation of screening is unlikely to be beneficial after the age of 68-70 yr if PSA is still <2 ng/ml. No case of PCSM emerged in the subsequent 8 yr (up to age 76-78 yr). A limitation is that these results may not be generalizable to an opportunistic screening setting or to contemporary clinical practice. Conclusions: In all age groups, baseline PSA can guide decisions on the repeat screening interval. Baseline PSA of <1.0 ng/ml for men aged 55-69 yr is a strong indicator to delay or stop further screening. Patient summary: In prostate cancer screening, the patient's baseline PSA (prostate-specific antigen) level can be used to guide decisions on when to repeat screening. The PSA test when used according to current knowledge is valuable in helping to reduce the burden of prostate cancer.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
