8 results on '"Harkness, EF"'
Search Results
2. Registration quality and descriptive epidemiology of childhood brain tumours in Scotland 1975-90
- Author
-
McKinney, PA, primary, Ironside, JW, additional, Harkness, EF, additional, Arango, JC, additional, Doyle, D, additional, and Black, RJ, additional
- Published
- 1994
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Cancer incidence in a population potentially exposed to radium-226 at Dalgety Bay, Scotland
- Author
-
Black, RJ, primary, Sharp, L, additional, Finlayson, AR, additional, and Harkness, EF, additional
- Published
- 1994
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
4. Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).
- Author
-
Gareth Evans D, McWilliams L, Astley S, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Dobrashian R, Duffy SW, Gorman LS, Harkness EF, Harrison F, Harvie M, Jerrison A, Machin M, Maxwell AJ, Howell SJ, Wright SJ, Payne K, Qureshi N, Ruane H, Southworth J, Fox L, Bowers S, Hutchinson G, Thorpe E, Ulph F, Woof V, Howell A, and French DP
- Subjects
- Female, Humans, Mammography, Early Detection of Cancer, Breast Density, Risk Factors, Breast Neoplasms diagnosis
- Abstract
Background: Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS)., Methods: Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening., Results: Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication., Discussion: We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification., Trial Registration: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420)., (© 2023. The Authors.)
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. Correction To: Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).
- Author
-
Gareth Evans D, McWilliams L, Astley S, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Dobrashian R, Duffy SW, Gorman LS, Harkness EF, Harrison F, Harvie M, Jerrison A, Machin M, Maxwell AJ, Howell SJ, Wright SJ, Payne K, Qureshi N, Ruane H, Southworth J, Fox L, Bowers S, Hutchinson G, Thorpe E, Ulph F, Woof V, Howell A, and French DP
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Mendelian randomisation study of smoking exposure in relation to breast cancer risk.
- Author
-
Park HA, Neumeyer S, Michailidou K, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Dennis J, Ahearn TU, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, Antonenkova NN, Arndt V, Aronson KJ, Augustinsson A, Baten A, Beane Freeman LE, Becher H, Beckmann MW, Behrens S, Benitez J, Bermisheva M, Bogdanova NV, Bojesen SE, Brauch H, Brenner H, Brucker SY, Burwinkel B, Campa D, Canzian F, Castelao JE, Chanock SJ, Chenevix-Trench G, Clarke CL, Conroy DM, Couch FJ, Cox A, Cross SS, Czene K, Daly MB, Devilee P, Dörk T, Dos-Santos-Silva I, Dwek M, Eccles DM, Eliassen AH, Engel C, Eriksson M, Evans DG, Fasching PA, Flyger H, Fritschi L, García-Closas M, García-Sáenz JA, Gaudet MM, Giles GG, Glendon G, Goldberg MS, Goldgar DE, González-Neira A, Grip M, Guénel P, Hahnen E, Haiman CA, Håkansson N, Hall P, Hamann U, Han S, Harkness EF, Hart SN, He W, Heemskerk-Gerritsen BAM, Hopper JL, Hunter DJ, Jager A, Jakubowska A, John EM, Jung A, Kaaks R, Kapoor PM, Keeman R, Khusnutdinova E, Kitahara CM, Koppert LB, Koutros S, Kristensen VN, Kurian AW, Lacey J, Lambrechts D, Le Marchand L, Lo WY, Lubiński J, Mannermaa A, Manoochehri M, Margolin S, Martinez ME, Mavroudis D, Meindl A, Menon U, Milne RL, Muranen TA, Nevanlinna H, Newman WG, Nordestgaard BG, Offit K, Olshan AF, Olsson H, Park-Simon TW, Peterlongo P, Peto J, Plaseska-Karanfilska D, Presneau N, Radice P, Rennert G, Rennert HS, Romero A, Saloustros E, Sawyer EJ, Schmidt MK, Schmutzler RK, Schoemaker MJ, Schwentner L, Scott C, Shah M, Shu XO, Simard J, Smeets A, Southey MC, Spinelli JJ, Stevens V, Swerdlow AJ, Tamimi RM, Tapper WJ, Taylor JA, Terry MB, Tomlinson I, Troester MA, Truong T, Vachon CM, van Veen EM, Vijai J, Wang S, Wendt C, Winqvist R, Wolk A, Ziogas A, Dunning AM, Pharoah PDP, Easton DF, Zheng W, Kraft P, and Chang-Claude J
- Subjects
- Breast Neoplasms etiology, Breast Neoplasms genetics, Case-Control Studies, Cigarette Smoking adverse effects, Cigarette Smoking genetics, Female, Genetic Pleiotropy, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genotyping Techniques, Humans, Mendelian Randomization Analysis, Breast Neoplasms epidemiology, Cigarette Smoking epidemiology, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
- Abstract
Background: Despite a modest association between tobacco smoking and breast cancer risk reported by recent epidemiological studies, it is still equivocal whether smoking is causally related to breast cancer risk., Methods: We applied Mendelian randomisation (MR) to evaluate a potential causal effect of cigarette smoking on breast cancer risk. Both individual-level data as well as summary statistics for 164 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) reported in genome-wide association studies of lifetime smoking index (LSI) or cigarette per day (CPD) were used to obtain MR effect estimates. Data from 108,420 invasive breast cancer cases and 87,681 controls were used for the LSI analysis and for the CPD analysis conducted among ever-smokers from 26,147 cancer cases and 26,072 controls. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address pleiotropy., Results: Genetically predicted LSI was associated with increased breast cancer risk (OR 1.18 per SD, 95% CI: 1.07-1.30, P = 0.11 × 10
-2 ), but there was no evidence of association for genetically predicted CPD (OR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.78-1.19, P = 0.85). The sensitivity analyses yielded similar results and showed no strong evidence of pleiotropic effect., Conclusion: Our MR study provides supportive evidence for a potential causal association with breast cancer risk for lifetime smoking exposure but not cigarettes per day among smokers., (© 2021. The Author(s).)- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Genome-wide association study of germline variants and breast cancer-specific mortality.
- Author
-
Escala-Garcia M, Guo Q, Dörk T, Canisius S, Keeman R, Dennis J, Beesley J, Lecarpentier J, Bolla MK, Wang Q, Abraham J, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, Arndt V, Auer PL, Beckmann MW, Behrens S, Benitez J, Bermisheva M, Bernstein L, Blomqvist C, Boeckx B, Bojesen SE, Bonanni B, Børresen-Dale AL, Brauch H, Brenner H, Brentnall A, Brinton L, Broberg P, Brock IW, Brucker SY, Burwinkel B, Caldas C, Caldés T, Campa D, Canzian F, Carracedo A, Carter BD, Castelao JE, Chang-Claude J, Chanock SJ, Chenevix-Trench G, Cheng TD, Chin SF, Clarke CL, Cordina-Duverger E, Couch FJ, Cox DG, Cox A, Cross SS, Czene K, Daly MB, Devilee P, Dunn JA, Dunning AM, Durcan L, Dwek M, Earl HM, Ekici AB, Eliassen AH, Ellberg C, Engel C, Eriksson M, Evans DG, Figueroa J, Flesch-Janys D, Flyger H, Gabrielson M, Gago-Dominguez M, Galle E, Gapstur SM, García-Closas M, García-Sáenz JA, Gaudet MM, George A, Georgoulias V, Giles GG, Glendon G, Goldgar DE, González-Neira A, Alnæs GIG, Grip M, Guénel P, Haeberle L, Hahnen E, Haiman CA, Håkansson N, Hall P, Hamann U, Hankinson S, Harkness EF, Harrington PA, Hart SN, Hartikainen JM, Hein A, Hillemanns P, Hiller L, Holleczek B, Hollestelle A, Hooning MJ, Hoover RN, Hopper JL, Howell A, Huang G, Humphreys K, Hunter DJ, Janni W, John EM, Jones ME, Jukkola-Vuorinen A, Jung A, Kaaks R, Kabisch M, Kaczmarek K, Kerin MJ, Khan S, Khusnutdinova E, Kiiski JI, Kitahara CM, Knight JA, Ko YD, Koppert LB, Kosma VM, Kraft P, Kristensen VN, Krüger U, Kühl T, Lambrechts D, Le Marchand L, Lee E, Lejbkowicz F, Li L, Lindblom A, Lindström S, Linet M, Lissowska J, Lo WY, Loibl S, Lubiński J, Lux MP, MacInnis RJ, Maierthaler M, Maishman T, Makalic E, Mannermaa A, Manoochehri M, Manoukian S, Margolin S, Martinez ME, Mavroudis D, McLean C, Meindl A, Middha P, Miller N, Milne RL, Moreno F, Mulligan AM, Mulot C, Nassir R, Neuhausen SL, Newman WT, Nielsen SF, Nordestgaard BG, Norman A, Olsson H, Orr N, Pankratz VS, Park-Simon TW, Perez JIA, Pérez-Barrios C, Peterlongo P, Petridis C, Pinchev M, Prajzendanc K, Prentice R, Presneau N, Prokofieva D, Pylkäs K, Rack B, Radice P, Ramachandran D, Rennert G, Rennert HS, Rhenius V, Romero A, Roylance R, Saloustros E, Sawyer EJ, Schmidt DF, Schmutzler RK, Schneeweiss A, Schoemaker MJ, Schumacher F, Schwentner L, Scott RJ, Scott C, Seynaeve C, Shah M, Simard J, Smeets A, Sohn C, Southey MC, Swerdlow AJ, Talhouk A, Tamimi RM, Tapper WJ, Teixeira MR, Tengström M, Terry MB, Thöne K, Tollenaar RAEM, Tomlinson I, Torres D, Truong T, Turman C, Turnbull C, Ulmer HU, Untch M, Vachon C, van Asperen CJ, van den Ouweland AMW, van Veen EM, Wendt C, Whittemore AS, Willett W, Winqvist R, Wolk A, Yang XR, Zhang Y, Easton DF, Fasching PA, Nevanlinna H, Eccles DM, Pharoah PDP, and Schmidt MK
- Subjects
- Bayes Theorem, Breast Neoplasms metabolism, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 7, Female, Genetic Variation, Genome-Wide Association Study, Humans, Prognosis, Proportional Hazards Models, Receptors, Estrogen genetics, Receptors, Estrogen metabolism, White People genetics, Breast Neoplasms genetics, Breast Neoplasms mortality
- Abstract
Background: We examined the associations between germline variants and breast cancer mortality using a large meta-analysis of women of European ancestry., Methods: Meta-analyses included summary estimates based on Cox models of twelve datasets using ~10.4 million variants for 96,661 women with breast cancer and 7697 events (breast cancer-specific deaths). Oestrogen receptor (ER)-specific analyses were based on 64,171 ER-positive (4116) and 16,172 ER-negative (2125) patients. We evaluated the probability of a signal to be a true positive using the Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP)., Results: We did not find any variant associated with breast cancer-specific mortality at P < 5 × 10
-8 . For ER-positive disease, the most significantly associated variant was chr7:rs4717568 (BFDP = 7%, P = 1.28 × 10-7 , hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.84-0.92); the closest gene is AUTS2. For ER-negative disease, the most significant variant was chr7:rs67918676 (BFDP = 11%, P = 1.38 × 10-7 , HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16-1.39); located within a long intergenic non-coding RNA gene (AC004009.3), close to the HOXA gene cluster., Conclusions: We uncovered germline variants on chromosome 7 at BFDP < 15% close to genes for which there is biological evidence related to breast cancer outcome. However, the paucity of variants associated with mortality at genome-wide significance underpins the challenge in providing genetic-based individualised prognostic information for breast cancer patients.- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Breast cancer risk feedback to women in the UK NHS breast screening population.
- Author
-
Evans DG, Donnelly LS, Harkness EF, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Dawe S, Watterson D, Fox L, Sergeant JC, Ingham S, Harvie MN, Wilson M, Beetles U, Buchan I, Brentnall AR, French DP, Cuzick J, and Howell A
- Subjects
- Aged, Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Risk Assessment, United Kingdom, Breast Neoplasms epidemiology
- Abstract
Introduction: There are widespread moves to develop risk-stratified approaches to population-based breast screening. The public needs to favour receiving breast cancer risk information, which ideally should produce no detrimental effects. This study investigates risk perception, the proportion wishing to know their 10-year risk and whether subsequent screening attendance is affected., Methods: Fifty thousand women attending the NHS Breast Screening Programme completed a risk assessment questionnaire. Ten-year breast cancer risks were estimated using a validated algorithm (Tyrer-Cuzick) adjusted for visually assessed mammographic density. Women at high risk (⩾8%) and low risk (<1%) were invited for face-to-face or telephone risk feedback and counselling., Results: Of those invited to receive risk feedback, more high-risk women, 500 out of 673 (74.3%), opted to receive a consultation than low-risk women, 106 out of 193 (54.9%) (P<0.001). Women at high risk were significantly more likely to perceive their risk as high (P<0.001) and to attend their subsequent mammogram (94.4%) compared with low-risk women (84.2%; P=0.04) and all attendees (84.3%; ⩽0.0001)., Conclusions: Population-based assessment of breast cancer risk is feasible. The majority of women wished to receive risk information. Perception of general population breast cancer risk is poor. There were no apparent adverse effects on screening attendance for high-risk women whose subsequent screening attendance was increased.
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.