Search

Several studies on pregnancy-associated cancers have suggested an association with congenital anomalies in offspring. Previous studies have included maternal cancers diagnosed up to 2 years after pregnancy; however, long latency periods of some cancers mean that cancers diagnosed many years postpartum might have been present during pregnancy in a preclinical state. This paper considers the association between maternal cancers diagnosed from 2 years prior to pregnancy until the mother reaches 50 years of age, and congenital anomalies, as diagnosed at birth or within the first year of life. The current population-based study looks at associations of cancers in mothers with congenital anomalies in their children. Children were followed up from birth to diagnosis of a congenital anomaly, death, emigration or end of follow-up (whichever occurred first). A total of 56,016 children (2.6%) were considered exposed to a maternal cancer of any type; and they had a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00, 1.09) compared with unexposed children. The greatest HR was seen among children whose mothers had been diagnosed with cancers before or during pregnancy (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.75). Similar results were seen when paternal cancers were used as a ‘negative control’. Statistically significant associations were seen for some specific congenital anomalies of organ systems (congenital anomalies of the musculoskeletal system [HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.25]) and for some specific types of maternal cancer (leukaemia [HR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.61], The results of the main analyses suggest a small increase in risk of congenital anomalies in offspring of mothers diagnosed with cancer from 2 years before pregnancy, until the mother reaches 50 years of age; with the greatest increase seen for exposure in the pre-pregnancy and pregnancy period. These results may reflect shared causes for some cancers and some congenital anomalies. The similar results seen for paternal cancers indicate that the cause may be genetic or related to the families’ social and environmental conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial. There are unresolved tensions and disagreements amongst experts, and clinical guidelines conflict. This both reflects and generates significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of screening. Little is known about general practitioners’ (GPs’) perspectives and experiences in relation to PSA testing of asymptomatic men. In this paper we asked the following questions: (1) What are the primary sources of uncertainty as described by GPs in the context of PSA testing? (2) How do GPs experience and respond to different sources of uncertainty? Methods: This was a qualitative study that explored general practitioners’ current approaches to, and reasoning about, PSA testing of asymptomatic men. We draw on accounts generated from interviews with 69 general practitioners located in Australia (n = 40) and the United Kingdom (n = 29). The interviews were conducted in 2013–2014. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods. Uncertainty in PSA testing was identified as a core issue. Findings: Australian GPs reported experiencing substantially more uncertainty than UK GPs. This seemed partly explainable by notable differences in conditions of practice between the two countries. Using Han et al’s taxonomy of uncertainty as an initial framework, we first outline the different sources of uncertainty GPs (mostly Australian) described encountering in relation to prostate cancer screening and what the uncertainty was about. We then suggest an extension to Han et al’s taxonomy based on our analysis of data relating to the varied ways that GPs manage uncertainties in the context of PSA testing. We outline three broad strategies: (1) taking charge of uncertainty; (2) engaging others in managing uncertainty; and (3) transferring the responsibility for reducing or managing some uncertainties to other parties. Conclusion: Our analysis suggests some GPs experienced uncertainties associated with ambiguous guidance and the complexities of their situation as professionals with responsibilities to patients as considerably burdensome. This raises important questions about responsibility for uncertainty. In Australia in particular they feel insufficiently supported by the health care system to practice in ways that are recognisably consistent with ‘evidence based’ professional standards and appropriate for patients. More work is needed to clarify under what circumstances and how uncertainty should be communicated. Closer attention to different types and aspects of the uncertainty construct could be useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is no consensus on how to investigate men with negative transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-B) but ongoing suspicion of cancer. Three strategies used are transperineal (TP-B), transrectal saturation (TS-B) and MRI-guided biopsy (MRI-B). We compared cancer yields of these strategies. Methods: Papers were identified by search of Pubmed, Embase and Ovid Medline. Included studies investigated biopsy diagnostic yield in men with at least one negative TRUS-B and ongoing suspicion of prostate cancer. Data including age, PSA, number of previous biopsy episodes, number of cores at re-biopsy, cancer yield, and Gleason score of detected cancers were extracted. Meta-regression analyses were used to analyse the data. Results: Forty-six studies were included; 12 of TS-B, 14 of TP-B, and 20 of MRI-B, representing 4,657 patients. Mean patient age, PSA and number of previous biopsy episodes were similar between the strategies. The mean number of biopsy cores obtained by TP-B and TS-B were greater than MRI-B. Cancer detection rates were 30·0%, 36·8%, and 37·6% for TS-B, TP-B, and MRI-B respectively. Meta-regression analysis showed that MRI-B had significantly higher cancer detection than TS-B. There were no significant differences however between MRI-B and TP-B, or TP-B and TS-B. In a sensitivity analysis incorporating number of previous biopsy episodes (36 studies) the difference between MRI-B and TP-B was not maintained resulting in no significant difference in cancer detection between the groups. There were no significant differences in median Gleason scores detected comparing the three strategies. Conclusions: In the re-biopsy setting, it is unclear which strategy offers the highest cancer detection rate. MRI-B may potentially detect more prostate cancers than other modalities and can achieve this with fewer biopsy cores. However, well–designed prospective studies with standardised outcome measures are needed to accurately compare modalities and define an optimum re-biopsy approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]