| 1. |
- Tran, K. B., et al.
(författare)
-
The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Lancet. - 0140-6736. ; 400:10352, s. 563-591
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.
|
|
| 2. |
- Khoury, J. D., et al.
(författare)
-
The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours: Myeloid and Histiocytic/Dendritic Neoplasms
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Leukemia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0887-6924 .- 1476-5551. ; 36, s. 1703-1719
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The upcoming 5th edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Haematolymphoid Tumours is part of an effort to hierarchically catalogue human cancers arising in various organ systems within a single relational database. This paper summarizes the new WHO classification scheme for myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms and provides an overview of the principles and rationale underpinning changes from the prior edition. The definition and diagnosis of disease types continues to be based on multiple clinicopathologic parameters, but with refinement of diagnostic criteria and emphasis on therapeutically and/or prognostically actionable biomarkers. While a genetic basis for defining diseases is sought where possible, the classification strives to keep practical worldwide applicability in perspective. The result is an enhanced, contemporary, evidence-based classification of myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms, rooted in molecular biology and an organizational structure that permits future scalability as new discoveries continue to inexorably inform future editions.
|
|
| 3. |
- Nejati, Babak, et al.
(författare)
-
Determinants of satisfactory patient communication and shared decision making in patients with multiple myeloma
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Psycho-Oncology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1057-9249 .- 1099-1611. ; 28:7, s. 1490-1497
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To identify determinants of shared decision making in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) to facilitate the design of a program to maximize the effects of shared decision making.METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study recruited 276 adult patients (52% male, mean age 62.86 y, SD 15.45). Each patient completed the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), Multidimensional Trust in Health Care Systems Scale (MTHCSS), Patient Communication Pattern Scale (PCPS), and 9-Item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) at baseline and the SDM-Q-9 again 6 months later. One family member of the patient completed the Family Decision-Making Self-Efficacy (FDMSE) at baseline. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to investigate the associations between eHealth literacy (eHEALS), trust in the health care system (MTHCSS), self-efficacy in family decision making (FDMSE), patient communication pattern (PCPS), and shared decision making (SDM-Q-9).RESULTS: SEM showed satisfactory fit (comparative fit index = 0.988) and significant correlations between the following: eHealth literacy and trust in the health care system (β = 0.723, P < 0.001); eHealth literacy and patient communication pattern (β = 0.242, P < 0.001); trust in the health care system and patient communication pattern (β = 0.397, P < 0.001); self-efficacy in family decision making and patient communication pattern (β = 0.264, P < 0.001); eHealth literacy and shared decision making (β = 0.267, P < 0.001); and patient communication pattern and shared decision making (β = 0.349, P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: Patient communication and eHealth literacy were found to be important determinants of shared decision making. These factors should be taken into consideration when developing strategies to enhance the level of shared decision making.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lin, Chung-Ying, et al.
(författare)
-
A thorough psychometric comparison between Athens Insomnia Scale and Insomnia Severity Index among patients with advanced cancer
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Sleep Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0962-1105 .- 1365-2869. ; 29:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- For patients with cancer, sleep disturbance is commonplace. Using classical test theory and Rasch analyses, the present study compared two commonly used psychometric instruments for insomnia – Athens Insomnia Scale and Insomnia Severity Index – among patients with advanced cancer. Through convenience sampling, patients with cancer at stage III or IV (n = 573; 326 males; mean age = 61.3 years; SD = 10.7) from eight oncology units of university hospitals in Iran participated in the study. All the participants completed the Athens Insomnia Scale, Insomnia Severity Index, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, General Health Questionnaire-12, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Additionally, 433 participants wore an Actigraph device for two continuous weekdays. Classical test theory and Rasch analysis both supported the construct validity for Athens Insomnia Scale (factor loadings from confirmatory factor analysis = 0.61–0.87; test–retest reliability = 0.72–0.82; infit mean square = 0.81–1.17; outfit MnSq = 0.79–1.14) and for Insomnia Severity Index (factor loadings from confirmatory factor analysis = 0.61–0.81; test–retest reliability = 0.72–0.82; infit mean square = 0.72–1.14; outfit mean square = 0.76–1.11). Both Athens Insomnia Scale and Insomnia Severity Index had significant associations with Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, General Health Questionnaire-12, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, as well as having good sensitivity and specificity. Significant differences in the actigraphy measure were found between insomniacs and non-insomniacs based on Athens Insomnia Scale or Insomnia Severity Index score. With promising results, healthcare providers can use either Athens Insomnia Scale or Insomnia Severity Index to understand the insomnia of patients with advanced cancer.
|
|
