Search

Background Evidence-based guidance for starting ages of screening for first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) to prevent stage III/IV or fatal PCa is lacking in current PCa screening guidelines. We aimed to provide evidence for risk-adapted starting age of screening for relatives of patients with PCa. Methods and findings In this register-based nationwide cohort study, all men (aged 0 to 96 years at baseline) residing in Sweden who were born after 1931 along with their fathers were included. During the follow-up (1958 to 2015) of 6,343,727 men, 88,999 were diagnosed with stage III/IV PCa or died of PCa. The outcomes were defined as the diagnosis of stage III/IV PCa or death due to PCa, stratified by age at diagnosis. Using 10-year cumulative risk curves, we calculated risk-adapted starting ages of screening for men with different constellations of family history of PCa. The 10-year cumulative risk of stage III/IV or fatal PCa in men at age 50 in the general population (a common recommended starting age of screening) was 0.2%. Men with [greater than or equal to]2 FDRs diagnosed with PCa reached this screening level at age 41 (95% confidence interval (CI): 39 to 44), i.e., 9 years earlier, when the youngest one was diagnosed before age 60; at age 43 (41 to 47), i.e., 7 years earlier, when [greater than or equal to]2 FDRs were diagnosed after age 59, which was similar to that of men with 1 FDR diagnosed before age 60 (41 to 45); and at age 45 (44 to 46), when 1 FDR was diagnosed at age 60 to 69 and 47 (46 to 47), when 1 FDR was diagnosed after age 69. We also calculated risk-adapted starting ages for other benchmark screening ages, such as 45, 55, and 60 years, and compared our findings with those in the guidelines. Study limitations include the lack of genetic data, information on lifestyle, and external validation. Conclusions Our study provides practical information for risk-tailored starting ages of PCa screening based on nationwide cancer data with valid genealogical information. Our clinically relevant findings could be used for evidence-based personalized PCa screening guidance and supplement current PCa screening guidelines for relatives of patients with PCa., Author(s): Xing Xu 1,2, Elham Kharazmi 1,3,4, Yu Tian 1,2, Trasias Mukama 1,2, Kristina Sundquist 3,5,6, Jan Sundquist 3,5,6, Hermann Brenner 1,7,8, Mahdi Fallah 1,3,* Introduction Prostate cancer (PCa) is [...]

Background: We need to better understand the frequency and predictors of opioid use disorder (OUD) after first opioid prescription (OP). Methods: We followed 1 516 392 individuals from the Swedish population born 1980–2000, from 1 July 2007, until 31 Dec 2017. We examined putative risk predictors with univariable and multivariable Cox Models and the potential causal effects of predictors by propensity score and co-sibling analyses. Result: Of the individuals in our cohort, 24.8% (375 404) received a first OP, of whom 3034 (0.90%) developed a subsequent first OUD. The hazard ratio (HR) (± 95% CIs) for OUD after OP equaled 7.10 (6.75–7.46), with a mean time to onset of 3.41 (2.39) years. The strongest putative risk factors for development of OUD after OP were prior psychiatric and substance use disorders, criminal behavior, parental divorce/death, poor school performance, current community deprivation, divorce, and male sex. Few predictors differed across sexes. OP renewal was associated with a HR of 3.66 (3.41–3.93) for OUD. Co-sibling and propensity score analyses suggested that at least a moderate proportion of the risk factor-OUD association was likely causal. A risk score to predict OUD after OP had an AUC of 0.85, where nearly 60% of cases scoring in the top decile. Conclusions: In a general population sample, an OP represents a substantial risk factor for subsequent OUD. Many of the risk factors for OUD after OP can be readily assessed at the time of potential OP, permitting clinicians to evaluate the risk of iatrogenic OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim was to explore the association between neighborhood deprivation and all‐cause mortality and cause‐specific mortalities in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A better understanding of this potential relationship may help to identify patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder with an increased mortality risk. Methods: This nationwide study included practically all adults (≥30 years) diagnosed with schizophrenia (n = 34,544) and bipolar disorder (n = 64,035) in Sweden (1997–2017). The association between neighborhood deprivation and mortality was explored using Cox regression. All models were conducted in both men and women and adjusted for individual‐level sociodemographic factors and comorbidities. Results: There was an association between level of neighborhood deprivation and all‐cause mortality in both groups. The adjusted hazard ratios for all‐cause mortality associated with high compared to low neighborhood deprivation were 1.18 (95% confidence interval 1.11–1.25) in patients with schizophrenia and 1.33 (1.26–1.41) in patients with bipolar disorder. The two most common mortality causes in both groups were coronary heart disease and cancer. The mortality due to coronary heart disease increased when neighborhood deprivation increased and reached 1.37 (1.18–1.60) in patients with schizophrenia and 1.70 (1.44–2.01) in patients with bipolar disorder living in the most deprived neighborhoods. Conclusions: This study shows that neighborhood deprivation is an important risk factor for all‐cause mortality and most cause‐specific mortalities among patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These findings could serve as aid to policymakers when allocating healthcare resources and to clinicians who encounter patients with these conditions in deprived neighborhoods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]