| 1. |
- Bayani, Jane, et al.
(author)
-
Evaluation of multiple transcriptomic gene risk signatures in male breast cancer
- 2021
-
In: npj Breast Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2374-4677. ; 7:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Male breast cancer (BCa) is a rare disease accounting for less than 1% of all breast cancers and 1% of all cancers in males. The clinical management is largely extrapolated from female BCa. Several multigene assays are increasingly used to guide clinical treatment decisions in female BCa, however, there are limited data on the utility of these tests in male BCa. Here we present the gene expression results of 381 M0, ER+ve, HER2-ve male BCa patients enrolled in the Part 1 (retrospective analysis) of the International Male Breast Cancer Program. Using a custom NanoString™ panel comprised of the genes from the commercial risk tests Prosigna®, OncotypeDX®, and MammaPrint®, risk scores and intrinsic subtyping data were generated to recapitulate the commercial tests as described by us previously. We also examined the prognostic value of other risk scores such as the Genomic Grade Index (GGI), IHC4-mRNA and our prognostic 95-gene signature. In this sample set of male BCa, we demonstrated prognostic utility on univariate analysis. Across all signatures, patients whose samples were identified as low-risk experienced better outcomes than intermediate-risk, with those classed as high risk experiencing the poorest outcomes. As seen with female BCa, the concordance between tests was poor, with C-index values ranging from 40.3% to 78.2% and Kappa values ranging from 0.17 to 0.58. To our knowledge, this is the largest study of male breast cancers assayed to generate risk scores of the current commercial and academic risk tests demonstrating comparable clinical utility to female BCa.
|
|
| 2. |
- Engert, Andreas, et al.
(author)
-
The European Hematology Association Roadmap for European Hematology Research : a consensus document
- 2016
-
In: Haematologica. - Pavia, Italy : Ferrata Storti Foundation (Haematologica). - 0390-6078 .- 1592-8721. ; 101:2, s. 115-208
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The European Hematology Association (EHA) Roadmap for European Hematology Research highlights major achievements in diagnosis and treatment of blood disorders and identifies the greatest unmet clinical and scientific needs in those areas to enable better funded, more focused European hematology research. Initiated by the EHA, around 300 experts contributed to the consensus document, which will help European policy makers, research funders, research organizations, researchers, and patient groups make better informed decisions on hematology research. It also aims to raise public awareness of the burden of blood disorders on European society, which purely in economic terms is estimated at (sic)23 billion per year, a level of cost that is not matched in current European hematology research funding. In recent decades, hematology research has improved our fundamental understanding of the biology of blood disorders, and has improved diagnostics and treatments, sometimes in revolutionary ways. This progress highlights the potential of focused basic research programs such as this EHA Roadmap. The EHA Roadmap identifies nine 'sections' in hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid and myeloid diseases, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These sections span 60 smaller groups of diseases or disorders. The EHA Roadmap identifies priorities and needs across the field of hematology, including those to develop targeted therapies based on genomic profiling and chemical biology, to eradicate minimal residual malignant disease, and to develop cellular immunotherapies, combination treatments, gene therapies, hematopoietic stem cell treatments, and treatments that are better tolerated by elderly patients.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Ramani-Chander, Anusha, et al.
(author)
-
Applying systems thinking to identify enablers and challenges to scale-up interventions for hypertension and diabetes in low-income and middle-income countries : protocol for a longitudinal mixed-methods study
- 2022
-
In: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 2044-6055. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: There is an urgent need to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly in low-and middle-income countries, where the greatest burden lies. Yet, there is little research concerning the specific issues involved in scaling up NCD interventions targeting low-resource settings. We propose to examine this gap in up to 27 collaborative projects, which were funded by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) 2019 Scale Up Call, reflecting a total funding investment of approximately US$50 million. These projects represent diverse countries, contexts and adopt varied approaches and study designs to scale-up complex, evidence-based interventions to improve hypertension and diabetes outcomes. A systematic inquiry of these projects will provide necessary scientific insights into the enablers and challenges in the scale up of complex NCD interventions.Methods and analysis: We will apply systems thinking (a holistic approach to analyse the inter-relationship between constituent parts of scaleup interventions and the context in which the interventions are implemented) and adopt a longitudinal mixed-methods study design to explore the planning and early implementation phases of scale up projects. Data will be gathered at three time periods, namely, at planning (T-P), initiation of implementation (T-0) and 1-year postinitiation (T-1). We will extract project-related data from secondary documents at T-P and conduct multistakeholder qualitative interviews to gather data at T-0 and T-1. We will undertake descriptive statistical analysis of T-P data and analyse T-0 and T-1 data using inductive thematic coding. The data extraction tool and interview guides were developed based on a literature review of scale-up frameworks.Ethics and dissemination: The current protocol was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC number 23482). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and more broadly through the GACD network.
|
|
