| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kharazmi, Elham, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk of familial classical Hodgkin lymphoma by relationship, histology, age, and sex: A joint study from five Nordic countries.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Blood. - : American Society of Hematology. - 1528-0020 .- 0006-4971. ; 126:17, s. 1990-1995
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The rarity of familial Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) has hampered detailed analyses of familial clustering. We aimed to provide the familial risk of HL by relationship, histology, age at diagnosis and sex. A cohort of 57,475 first-degree relatives of 13,922 HL patients, diagnosed between 1955 and 2009, in five European countries was followed for HL incidence. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated using histology-, age-, sex-, period-, and country-specific incidence rates as the reference. The lifetime cumulative risks (CR) were also calculated. The overall CR of HL in first-degree relatives of a patient with HL was 0.6%, which represents a 3-fold (SIR=3.3, 95%CI=2.8-3.9) increased risk over the general population risk. The risk in siblings (6.0-fold; 4.8-7.4) was significantly higher than in parents/children (2.1-fold; 1.6-2.6). Very high lifetime risk of HL was found for those with multiple affected first-degree relatives (13-fold; 2.8-39) and for same-sex twins (57-fold; 21-125). We found high familial risks between some concordant histological subtypes of HL [lymphocyte-rich (81-fold, 30-177) and nodular sclerosis (4.6-fold, 2.9-7.0)] and also between some discordant subtypes. The familial risk in sisters (9.4-fold; 5.9-14) was higher than in brothers (4.5-fold; 2.9-6.7) or unlike-sex siblings (5.9-fold; 4.3-8.1). The lifetime risk of HL was higher when first-degree relatives were diagnosed at early ages (before age 30). This study provides tangible absolute risk estimates for relatives of HL patients, which can be used as a sex-, age-, and family history-based risk calculator for classical Hodgkin lymphoma by oncologists and genetic counselors.
|
|
| 3. |
- Koljonen, Virve, et al.
(författare)
-
Joint occurrence of Merkel cell carcinoma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas in four Nordic countries
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Leukemia & Lymphoma. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1042-8194 .- 1029-2403. ; 56:12, s. 3315-3319
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The objective of this study was to assess the reciprocal association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) using the data of four Nordic Cancer Registries. Data for this study were drawn from the Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, and Swedish cancer registries. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for MCC among NHL patients, and for NHL among MCC patients, were calculated. There were 109 838 individuals with NHL and 1411 individuals with MCC, of which 28 had joint occurrence of NHL and MCC. In 18 cases, NHL was diagnosed first, and in 10 cases, MCC was diagnosed first. The SIR for MCC after NHL was 4.34 (95% confidence interval 2.57-6.85). The SIR for NHL after MCC was 3.13 (1.50-5.77). Although the absolute frequency of joint occurrence of MCC and NHL is low, individuals suffering from one of the cancer forms have an increased risk of the other.
|
|
| 4. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
