RESULTS: Using Open Data Kit GeoODK, we designed and piloted an electronic questionnaire for rolling cross sectional surveys of health facility attendees as part of a malaria elimination campaign in two predominantly rural sites in the Rizal, Palawan, the Philippines and Kulon Progo Regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The majority of health workers were able to use the tablets effectively, including locating participant households on electronic maps. For all households sampled (n = 603), health facility workers were able to retrospectively find the participant household using the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates and data collected by tablet computers. Median distance between actual house locations and points collected on the tablet was 116 m (IQR 42-368) in Rizal and 493 m (IQR 258-886) in Kulon Progo Regency. Accuracy varied between health facilities and decreased in less populated areas with fewer prominent landmarks.
CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate the utility of this approach to develop real-time high-resolution maps of disease in resource-poor environments. This method provides an attractive approach for quickly obtaining spatial information on individuals presenting at health facilities in resource poor areas where formal addresses are unavailable and internet connectivity is limited. Further research is needed on how to integrate these with other health data management systems and implement in a wider operational context.
METHODS: This WHO-coordinated, prospective, observational cohort study was done at 279 clusters (villages or groups of villages in which phenotypic resistance was measurable) in Benin, Cameroon, India, Kenya, and Sudan. Pyrethroid long-lasting insecticidal nets were the principal form of malaria vector control in all study areas; in Sudan this approach was supplemented by indoor residual spraying. Cohorts of children from randomly selected households in each cluster were recruited and followed up by community health workers to measure incidence of clinical malaria and prevalence of infection. Mosquitoes were assessed for susceptibility to pyrethroids using the standard WHO bioassay test. Country-specific results were combined using meta-analysis.
FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2012, and Nov 4, 2016, 40 000 children were enrolled and assessed for clinical incidence during 1·4 million follow-up visits. 80 000 mosquitoes were assessed for insecticide resistance. Long-lasting insecticidal net users had lower infection prevalence (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·51-0·78) and disease incidence (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0·62, 0·41-0·94) than did non-users across a range of resistance levels. We found no evidence of an association between insecticide resistance and infection prevalence (adjusted OR 0·86, 0·70-1·06) or incidence (adjusted RR 0·89, 0·72-1·10). Users of nets, although significantly better protected than non-users, were nevertheless subject to high malaria infection risk (ranging from an average incidence in net users of 0·023, [95% CI 0·016-0·033] per person-year in India, to 0·80 [0·65-0·97] per person year in Kenya; and an average infection prevalence in net users of 0·8% [0·5-1·3] in India to an average infection prevalence of 50·8% [43·4-58·2] in Benin).
INTERPRETATION: Irrespective of resistance, populations in malaria endemic areas should continue to use long-lasting insecticidal nets to reduce their risk of infection. As nets provide only partial protection, the development of additional vector control tools should be prioritised to reduce the unacceptably high malaria burden.
FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and UK Department for International Development.
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: 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.
OBJECTIVE: To report the utility of PSA screening, PrCa incidence, positive predictive value of PSA, biopsy, and tumour characteristics after 3 yr of screening, by BRCA status.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 40-69 yr with a germline pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutation and male controls testing negative for a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were recruited. Participants underwent PSA screening for 3 yr, and if PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, men were offered prostate biopsy.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PSA levels, PrCa incidence, and tumour characteristics were evaluated. Statistical analyses included Poisson regression offset by person-year follow-up, chi-square tests for proportion t tests for means, and Kruskal-Wallis for medians.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3027 patients (2932 unique individuals) were recruited (919 BRCA1 carriers, 709 BRCA1 noncarriers, 902 BRCA2 carriers, and 497 BRCA2 noncarriers). After 3 yr of screening, 527 men had PSA > 3.0 ng/ml, 357 biopsies were performed, and 112 PrCa cases were diagnosed (31 BRCA1 carriers, 19 BRCA1 noncarriers, 47 BRCA2 carriers, and 15 BRCA2 noncarriers). Higher compliance with biopsy was observed in BRCA2 carriers compared with noncarriers (73% vs 60%). Cancer incidence rate per 1000 person years was higher in BRCA2 carriers than in noncarriers (19.4 vs 12.0; p = 0.03); BRCA2 carriers were diagnosed at a younger age (61 vs 64 yr; p = 0.04) and were more likely to have clinically significant disease than BRCA2 noncarriers (77% vs 40%; p = 0.01). No differences in age or tumour characteristics were detected between BRCA1 carriers and BRCA1 noncarriers. The 4 kallikrein marker model discriminated better (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73) for clinically significant cancer at biopsy than PSA alone (AUC = 0.65).
CONCLUSIONS: After 3 yr of screening, compared with noncarriers, BRCA2 mutation carriers were associated with a higher incidence of PrCa, younger age of diagnosis, and clinically significant tumours. Therefore, systematic PSA screening is indicated for men with a BRCA2 mutation. Further follow-up is required to assess the role of screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers.
PATIENT SUMMARY: We demonstrate that after 3 yr of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, we detect more serious prostate cancers in men with BRCA2 mutations than in those without these mutations. We recommend that male BRCA2 carriers are offered systematic PSA screening.
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.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort.
RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10-72). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10-50). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10-22) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10-12) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar.
CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.
OBJECTIVE: To identify mutation-specific cancer risks for carriers of BRCA1/2.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study of women who were ascertained between 1937 and 2011 (median, 1999) and found to carry disease-associated BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The international sample comprised 19,581 carriers of BRCA1 mutations and 11,900 carriers of BRCA2 mutations from 55 centers in 33 countries on 6 continents. We estimated hazard ratios for breast and ovarian cancer based on mutation type, function, and nucleotide position. We also estimated RHR, the ratio of breast vs ovarian cancer hazard ratios. A value of RHR greater than 1 indicated elevated breast cancer risk; a value of RHR less than 1 indicated elevated ovarian cancer risk.
EXPOSURES: Mutations of BRCA1 or BRCA2.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast and ovarian cancer risks.
RESULTS: Among BRCA1 mutation carriers, 9052 women (46%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 2317 (12%) with ovarian cancer, 1041 (5%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 7171 (37%) without cancer. Among BRCA2 mutation carriers, 6180 women (52%) were diagnosed with breast cancer, 682 (6%) with ovarian cancer, 272 (2%) with breast and ovarian cancer, and 4766 (40%) without cancer. In BRCA1, we identified 3 breast cancer cluster regions (BCCRs) located at c.179 to c.505 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74; P = 2 × 10(-6)), c.4328 to c.4945 (BCCR2; RHR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.78; P = .04), and c. 5261 to c.5563 (BCCR2', RHR = 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; P = 6 × 10(-9)). We also identified an ovarian cancer cluster region (OCCR) from c.1380 to c.4062 (approximately exon 11) with RHR = 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70; P = 9 × 10(-17)). In BRCA2, we observed multiple BCCRs spanning c.1 to c.596 (BCCR1; RHR = 1.71; 95% CI, 1.06-2.78; P = .03), c.772 to c.1806 (BCCR1'; RHR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.40; P = .01), and c.7394 to c.8904 (BCCR2; RHR = 2.31; 95% CI, 1.69-3.16; P = .00002). We also identified 3 OCCRs: the first (OCCR1) spanned c.3249 to c.5681 that was adjacent to c.5946delT (6174delT; RHR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.44-0.60; P = 6 × 10(-17)). The second OCCR spanned c.6645 to c.7471 (OCCR2; RHR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Mutations conferring nonsense-mediated decay were associated with differential breast or ovarian cancer risks and an earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast and ovarian cancer risks varied by type and location of BRCA1/2 mutations. With appropriate validation, these data may have implications for risk assessment and cancer prevention decision making for carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.