SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Parent ME) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Parent ME)

  • Resultat 1-10 av 19
  • [1]2Nästa
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  •  
2.
  •  
3.
  • Conti, David, V, et al. (författare)
  • Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: Nature Genetics. - : NATURE RESEARCH. - 1061-4036 .- 1546-1718. ; 53:1, s. 65-75
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84-5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36-4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14-2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71-0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction. A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies across different populations highlights new risk loci and provides a genetic risk score that can stratify prostate cancer risk across ancestries.
  •  
4.
  • Huynh-Le, Minh-Phuong, et al. (författare)
  • Polygenic hazard score is associated with prostate cancer in multi-ethnic populations
  • 2021
  • Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : NATURE RESEARCH. - 2041-1723 .- 2041-1723. ; 12
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Genetic models for cancer have been evaluated using almost exclusively European data, which could exacerbate health disparities. A polygenic hazard score (PHS1) is associated with age at prostate cancer diagnosis and improves screening accuracy in Europeans. Here, we evaluate performance of PHS2 (PHS1, adapted for OncoArray) in a multi-ethnic dataset of 80,491 men (49,916 cases, 30,575 controls). PHS2 is associated with age at diagnosis of any and aggressive (Gleason score >= 7, stage T3-T4, PSA >= 10ng/mL, or nodal/distant metastasis) cancer and prostate-cancer-specific death. Associations with cancer are significant within European (n=71,856), Asian (n=2,382), and African (n=6,253) genetic ancestries (p<10(-180)). Comparing the 80(th)/20(th) PHS2 percentiles, hazard ratios for prostate cancer, aggressive cancer, and prostate-cancer-specific death are 5.32, 5.88, and 5.68, respectively. Within European, Asian, and African ancestries, hazard ratios for prostate cancer are: 5.54, 4.49, and 2.54, respectively. PHS2 risk-stratifies men for any, aggressive, and fatal prostate cancer in a multi-ethnic dataset. A polygenic hazard score (PHS1) improves prostate cancer screening accuracy in European patients. Here, the authors test the performance of a version compatible with OncoArray genotypes (PHS2) in a multi-ethnic dataset and find that it risk-stratifies men for any, aggressive, and fatal prostate cancer.
  •  
5.
  • Pearce, Neil E, et al. (författare)
  • IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
  • 2015
  • Ingår i: Journal of 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.
  •  
6.
  •  
7.
  •  
8.
  •  
9.
  •  
10.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-10 av 19
  • [1]2Nästa

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy