METHODS: PSAV was calculated using logistic regression to determine if PSA or PSAV predicted the result of prostate biopsy (PB) in men with elevated PSA values. Cox regression was used to determine whether PSA or PSAV predicted PSA elevation in men with low PSAs. Interaction terms were included in the models to determine whether BRCA status influenced the predictiveness of PSA or PSAV.
RESULTS: 1634 participants had ⩾3 PSA readings of whom 174 underwent PB and 45 PrCas diagnosed. In men with PSA >3.0 ng ml-l, PSAV was not significantly associated with presence of cancer or high-grade disease. PSAV did not add to PSA for predicting time to an elevated PSA. When comparing BRCA1/2 carriers to non-carriers, we found a significant interaction between BRCA status and last PSA before biopsy (P=0.031) and BRCA2 status and PSAV (P=0.024). However, PSAV was not predictive of biopsy outcome in BRCA2 carriers.
CONCLUSIONS: PSA is more strongly predictive of PrCa in BRCA carriers than non-carriers. We did not find evidence that PSAV aids decision-making for BRCA carriers over absolute PSA value alone.
METHOD: Using linear regression adjusting for age, BMI, and ancestry-informative principal components, we evaluated the associations of previously reported MD-associated SNPs with MD in a multi-ethnic cohort of Asian ancestry. Area and volumetric mammographic densities were determined using STRATUS (N = 2450) and Volpara™ (N = 2257). We also assessed the associations of these SNPs with breast cancer risk in an Asian population of 14,570 cases and 80,870 controls.
RESULTS: Of the 61 SNPs available in our data, 21 were associated with MD at a nominal threshold of P value 0.05, 29 variants showed consistent directions of association as those previously reported. We found that nine of the 21 MD-associated SNPs in this study were also associated with breast cancer risk in Asian women (P
METHODS: One hundred fifty-three orthopaedic residents were recruited and randomly assigned to either the LAC or CAC. They were allocated 2 practice sessions, with 20 minutes each, to practice 4 given arthroscopic tasks: task 1, transferring objects; task 2, stacking objects; task 3, probing numbers; and task 4, stretching rubber bands. The time taken for participants to complete the given tasks was recorded in 3 separate tests; before practice, immediately after practice, and after a period of 3 months. A comparison of the time taken between both groups to complete the given tasks in each test was measured as the primary outcome.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in time completion were seen in the post-practice test for both groups in all given arthroscopic tasks, each with P < .001. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for task 1 (P = .743), task 2 (P = .940), task 3 (P = .932), task 4 (P = .929), and total (P = .944). The outcomes of the tests (before practice, after practice, and at 3 months) according to repeated measures analysis of variance did not differ significantly between the groups in task 1 (P = .475), task 2 (P = .558), task 3 (P = .850), task 4 (P = .965), and total (P = .865).
CONCLUSIONS: The LAC is equally as effective as the CAC in basic arthroscopic skills training with the advantage of being cost-effective.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In view of the scarcity in commercial arthroscopic devices for trainees, this low-cost device, which trainees can personally own and use, may provide a less expensive and easily available way for trainees to improve their arthroscopic skills. This might also cultivate more interest in arthroscopic surgery among junior surgeons.
METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued through BRCA mutation testing or routine clinical surveillance (RCS) for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 early-stage breast cancer patients aged 40 years. In the model, patients would decide whether to accept testing and to undertake risk-reducing mastectomy, oophorectomy, tamoxifen, combinations or neither. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from the health system perspective. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: In the base case, testing generated 11.2 QALYs over the lifetime and cost US$4815 per patient whereas RCS generated 11.1 QALYs and cost US$4574 per patient. The ICER of US$2725/QALY was below the cost-effective thresholds. The ICER was sensitive to the discounting of cost, cost of BRCA mutation testing and utility of being risk-free, but the ICERs remained below the thresholds. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at a threshold of US$9500/QALY, 99.9% of simulations favoured BRCA mutation testing over RCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Offering BRCA mutation testing to early-stage breast cancer patients identified using a locally-validated risk-assessment tool may be cost effective compared to RCS in Malaysia.
METHODS: We used data from 3,184 BRCA1 and 2,157 BRCA2 families in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 to estimate age-specific relative (RR) and absolute risks for 22 first primary cancer types adjusting for family ascertainment.
RESULTS: BRCA1 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 4.30; 95% CI, 1.09 to 16.96), pancreatic (RR = 2.36; 95% CI, 1.51 to 3.68), and stomach (RR = 2.17; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.77) cancers. Associations with colorectal and gallbladder cancers were also suggested. BRCA2 PVs were associated with risks of male breast (RR = 44.0; 95% CI, 21.3 to 90.9), stomach (RR = 3.69; 95% CI, 2.40 to 5.67), pancreatic (RR = 3.34; 95% CI, 2.21 to 5.06), and prostate (RR = 2.22; 95% CI, 1.63 to 3.03) cancers. The stomach cancer RR was higher for females than males (6.89 v 2.76; P = .04). The absolute risks to age 80 years ranged from 0.4% for male breast cancer to approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer for BRCA1 carriers and from approximately 2.5% for pancreatic cancer to 27% for prostate cancer for BRCA2 carriers.
CONCLUSION: In addition to female breast and ovarian cancers, BRCA1 and BRCA2 PVs are associated with increased risks of male breast, pancreatic, stomach, and prostate (only BRCA2 PVs) cancers, but not with the risks of other previously suggested cancers. The estimated age-specific risks will refine cancer risk management in men and women with BRCA1/2 PVs.