OBJECTIVE: To report the first year's screening results for all men at enrollment in the study.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited men aged 40-69 yr with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and a control group of men who have tested negative for a pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation known to be present in their families. All men underwent prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing at enrollment, and those men with PSA >3 ng/ml were offered prostate biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. The Fisher exact test was used to compare the number of PCa cases among groups and the differences among disease types.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 2481 men (791 BRCA1 carriers, 531 BRCA1 controls; 731 BRCA2 carriers, 428 BRCA2 controls). A total of 199 men (8%) presented with PSA >3.0 ng/ml, 162 biopsies were performed, and 59 PCas were diagnosed (18 BRCA1 carriers, 10 BRCA1 controls; 24 BRCA2 carriers, 7 BRCA2 controls); 66% of the tumours were classified as intermediate- or high-risk disease. The positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3.0 ng/ml in BRCA2 mutation carriers was 48%-double the PPV reported in population screening studies. A significant difference in detecting intermediate- or high-risk disease was observed in BRCA2 carriers. Ninety-five percent of the men were white, thus the results cannot be generalised to all ethnic groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The IMPACT screening network will be useful for targeted PCa screening studies in men with germline genetic risk variants as they are discovered. These preliminary results support the use of targeted PSA screening based on BRCA genotype and show that this screening yields a high proportion of aggressive disease.
PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we demonstrate that germline genetic markers can be used to identify men at higher risk of prostate cancer. Targeting screening at these men resulted in the identification of tumours that were more likely to require treatment.
METHODS: The cross-sectional study was designed to investigate the occurrence of respiratory viruses including respiratory syncytisl virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (HMPV), influenza virus A and B (IFV-A and B), parainfluenzavirus 1, 2, 3 and 4 (PIV 1, 2, 3 and 4), human rhinoviruses (HRV), human enterovirus (HEV), human coronaviruses (HCoV) 229E and OC43, human bocavirus (HBoV) and human adenovirus (HAdV) in hospitalized children with ALRTIs, at Hospital Serdang, Malaysia, from June 16 to December 21, 2009. The study was also designed in part to assess the performance of the conventional methods against molecular methods.
RESULTS: Viral pathogens were detected in 158 (95.8%) of the patients. Single virus infections were detected in 114 (67.9%) patients; 46 (27.9%) were co-infected with different viruses including double-virus infections in 37 (22.4%) and triple-virus infections in 9 (5.5%) cases. Approximately 70% of samples were found to be positive using conventional methods compared with 96% using molecular methods. A wide range of respiratory viruses were detected in the study. There was a high prevalence of RSV (50.3%) infections, particularly group B viruses. Other etiological agents including HAdV, HMPV, IFV-A, PIV 1-3, HBoV, HCoV-OC43 and HEV were detected in 14.5, 9.6, 9.1, 4.8, 3.6, 2.4 and 1.8 percent of the samples, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated the increased sensitivity of molecular detection methods compared with conventional methods for the diagnosis of ARTIs in hospitalized children. This is the first report of HMPV infections in Malaysia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional online study using a validated questionnaire was distributed to doctors (MD), assistant medical officers (AMO), and staff nurses (SN) at an urban tertiary Emergency Department. It comprised of 40 knowledge and 10 confidence-level questions related to resuscitation and airway management steps.
RESULTS: A total of 135 from 167 eligible EHCW were enrolled. 68.9% (n = 93) had high knowledge while 53.3% (n = 72) possessed high confidence level. Overall knowledge mean score was 32.96/40 (SD = 3.63) between MD (33.88±3.09), AMO (32.28±4.03), and SN (32.00±3.60), P= 0.025. EHCWs with a length of service (LOS) between 4-10 years had the highest knowledge compared to those with LOS <4-year (33.71±3.39 versus 31.21±3.19 P = 0.002). Airway-related knowledge was significantly different between the designations and LOS (P = 0.002 and P = 0.003, respectively). Overall, EHCW confidence level against LOS showed significant difference [F (2, 132) = 5.46, P = 0.005] with longer LOS showing better confidence. MD showed the highest confidence compared to AMO and SN (3.67±0.69, 3.53±0.68, 3.26±0.64) P = 0.049. The majority EHCW were confident in performing high-quality chest-compression, and handling of Personal Protective Equipment but less than half were confident in resuscitating, leading the resuscitation, managing the airway or being successful in first intubation attempt.
CONCLUSIONS: EHCW possessed good knowledge in airway and resuscitation of COVID-19 patients, but differed between designations and LOS. A longer LOS was associated with better confidence, but there were some aspects in airway management and resuscitation that needed improvement.