| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Hollestelle, Antoinette, et al.
(författare)
-
No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Gynecologic Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0090-8258 .- 1095-6859. ; 141:2, s. 386-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3′ UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370. Methods Centralized genotyping and analysis were performed for 140,012 women enrolled in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (15,357 ovarian cancer patients; 30,816 controls), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (33,530 breast cancer patients; 37,640 controls), and the Consortium of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (14,765 BRCA1 and 7904 BRCA2 mutation carriers). Results We found no association with risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.04, p = 0.74) or breast cancer (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01, p = 0.19) and results were consistent among mutation carriers (BRCA1, ovarian cancer HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p = 0.14, breast cancer HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12, p = 0.27; BRCA2, ovarian cancer HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13, p = 0.34, breast cancer HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19, p = 0.35). Null results were also obtained for associations with overall survival following ovarian cancer (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p = 0.38), breast cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06, p = 0.38), and all other previously-reported associations. Conclusions rs61764370 is not associated with risk of ovarian or breast cancer nor with clinical outcome for patients with these cancers. Therefore, genotyping this variant has no clinical utility related to the prediction or management of these cancers.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Dareng, EO, et al.
(författare)
-
Polygenic risk modeling for prediction of epithelial ovarian cancer risk
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European journal of human genetics : EJHG. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5438 .- 1018-4813. ; 30:3, s. 349-362
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could improve predictive performance over standard approaches of PRS construction. Here, we implemented computationally efficient, penalized, logistic regression models (lasso, elastic net, stepwise) to individual level genotype data and a Bayesian framework with continuous shrinkage, “select and shrink for summary statistics” (S4), to summary level data for epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer risk prediction. We developed the models in a dataset consisting of 23,564 non-mucinous EOC cases and 40,138 controls participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) and validated the best models in three populations of different ancestries: prospective data from 198,101 women of European ancestries; 7,669 women of East Asian ancestries; 1,072 women of African ancestries, and in 18,915 BRCA1 and 12,337 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestries. In the external validation data, the model with the strongest association for non-mucinous EOC risk derived from the OCAC model development data was the S4 model (27,240 SNPs) with odds ratios (OR) of 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28–1.48, AUC: 0.588) per unit standard deviation, in women of European ancestries; 1.14 (95% CI: 1.08–1.19, AUC: 0.538) in women of East Asian ancestries; 1.38 (95% CI: 1.21–1.58, AUC: 0.593) in women of African ancestries; hazard ratios of 1.36 (95% CI: 1.29–1.43, AUC: 0.592) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers and 1.49 (95% CI: 1.35–1.64, AUC: 0.624) in BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Incorporation of the S4 PRS in risk prediction models for ovarian cancer may have clinical utility in ovarian cancer prevention programs.
|
|
| 5. |
- Alffenaar, J. W. C., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs
- 2022
-
Ingår i: The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. - Paris, France : International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. - 1027-3719 .- 1815-7920. ; 26:6, s. 483-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Optimal drug dosing is important to ensure adequate response to treatment, prevent development of drug resistance and reduce drug toxicity. The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on 'best practice' for dosing and management of TB drugs.Methods: A panel of 57 global experts in the fields of microbiology, pharmacology and TB care were identified; 51 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score draft standards. The final document represents the broad consensus and was approved by all participants.Results: Six clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, defining the most appropriate initial dose for TB treatment; Standard 2, identifying patients who may be at risk of sub-optimal drug exposure; Standard 3, identifying patients at risk of developing drug-related toxicity and how best to manage this risk; Standard 4, identifying patients who can benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM); Standard 5, highlighting education and counselling that should be provided to people initiating TB treatment; and Standard 6, providing essential education for healthcare professionals. In addition, consensus research priorities were identified.Conclusion: This is the first consensus-based Clinical Standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs to guide clinicians and programme managers in planning and implementation of locally appropriate measures for optimal person-centred treatment to improve patient care.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Singh, K. P., et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical standards for the management of adverse effects during treatment for TB
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. - : International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. - 1027-3719 .- 1815-7920. ; 27:7, s. 506-519
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Adverse effects (AE) to TB treatment cause morbidity, mortality and treatment interruption. The aim of these clinical standards is to encourage best practise for the diagnosis and management of AE.METHODS: 65/81 invited experts participated in a Delphi process using a 5-point Likert scale to score draft standards.RESULTS: We identified eight clinical standards. Each person commencing treatment for TB should: Standard 1, be counselled regarding AE before and during treatment; Standard 2, be evaluated for factors that might increase AE risk with regular review to actively identify and manage these; Standard 3, when AE occur, carefully assessed and possible allergic or hypersensitiv-ity reactions considered; Standard 4, receive appropriate care to minimise morbidity and mortality associated with AE; Standard 5, be restarted on TB drugs after a serious AE according to a standardised protocol that includes active drug safety monitoring. In addition: Standard 6, healthcare workers should be trained on AE including how to counsel people undertaking TB treatment, as well as active AE monitoring and management; Standard 7, there should be active AE monitoring and reporting for all new TB drugs and regimens; and Standard 8, knowledge gaps identified from active AE monitoring should be systematically addressed through clinical research.CONCLUSION: These standards provide a person -centred, consensus-based approach to minimise the impact of AE TB treatment.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
