scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Xiao-Si Wang

Bio: Xiao-Si Wang is an academic researcher from Cancer Epidemiology Unit. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Shift work. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 11 publications receiving 2243 citations. Previous affiliations of Xiao-Si Wang include University of London & Clinical Trial Service Unit.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Findings on shift work, in relation to risks of CVD, metabolic syndrome and diabetes are also suggestive but not conclusive for an adverse relationship, making it difficult to draw general conclusions.
Abstract: Background Shift work, including night work, has been hypothesized to increase the risk of chronic diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Recent reviews of evidence relating to these hypotheses have focussed on specific diseases or potential mechanisms, but no general summary of the current data on shift work and chronic disease has been published. Methods Systematic and critical reviews and recent original studies indexed in PubMed prior to 31 December 2009 were retrieved, aided by manual searches of reference lists. The main conclusions from reviews and principle results from recent studies are presented in text and tables. Results Published evidence is suggestive but not conclusive for an adverse association between night work and breast cancer but limited and inconsistent for cancers at other sites and all cancers combined. Findings on shift work, in relation to risks of CVD, metabolic syndrome and diabetes are also suggestive but not conclusive for an adverse relationship. Conclusions Heterogeneity of study exposures and outcomes and emphasis on positive but non-significant results make it difficult to draw general conclusions. Further data are needed for additional disease endpoints and study populations.

514 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The totality of the prospective evidence shows that nightshift work, including long-term shift work, has little or no effect on breast cancer incidence.
Abstract: Background: It has been proposed that night shift work could increase breast cancer incidence. A 2007 World Health Organization review concluded, mainly from animal evidence, that shift work involving circadian disruption is probably carcinogenic to humans. We therefore aimed to generate prospective epidemiological evidence on night shift work and breast cancer incidence. Methods: Overall, 522 246 Million Women Study, 22 559 EPIC-Oxford, and 251 045 UK Biobank participants answered questions on shift work and were followed for incident cancer. Cox regression yielded multivariable-adjusted breast cancer incidence rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for night shift work vs no night shift work, and likelihood ratio tests for interaction were used to assess heterogeneity. Our meta-analyses combined these and relative risks from the seven previously published prospective studies (1.4 million women in total), using inverse-variance weighted averages of the study-specific log RRs. Results: In the Million Women Study, EPIC-Oxford, and UK Biobank, respectively, 673, 28, and 67 women who reported night shift work developed breast cancer, and the RRs for any vs no night shift work were 1.00 (95% CI = 0.92 to 1.08), 1.07 (95% CI = 0.71 to 1.62), and 0.78 (95% CI = 0.61 to 1.00). In the Million Women Study, the RR for 20 or more years of night shift work was 1.00 (95% CI = 0.81 to 1.23), with no statistically significant heterogeneity by sleep patterns or breast cancer risk factors. Our meta-analysis of all 10 prospective studies included 4660 breast cancers in women reporting night shift work; compared with other women, the combined relative risks were 0.99 (95% CI = 0.95 to 1.03) for any night shift work, 1.01 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.10) for 20 or more years of night shift work, and 1.00 (95% CI = 0.87 to 1.14) for 30 or more years. Conclusions: The totality of the prospective evidence shows that night shift work, including long-term shift work, has little or no effect on breast cancer incidence.

152 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A five-level trust model for a cloud-edge based data sharing infrastructure that allows the confidential sharing of CTI for analysis between collaborators and is designed to satisfy the broadest range of requirements for confidential CTI data sharing is proposed.

47 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Women who reported having working at night were substantially different from those who reporting never having worked at night and many of the differences would put "ever night workers" at increased risks of cancer, vascular disease, and many other common conditions.
Abstract: Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of women who had and had not worked at night in terms of their risk factors for common disease, indicators of general health, social activities, employment, and sleep behavior. Methods The Million Women Study is a large prospective cohort study of women’s health in the United Kingdom with 1.3 million women recruited during 1996–2001 (aged 50–64 years) through 66 National Health Service breast screening centers. We analyzed the data from a random sample of 41 652 participants who, in 2009–2010, reported their history of night work. Results Of the participants, 1 in 8 women (13%) reported that they had ever worked at night and 1 in 50 (2%) reported working at night for ≥20 years. For 33 sociodemographic, behavioral, reproductive, and hormonal factors examined, 20 showed highly significant differences between “ever” and “never” night workers (P<0.0001); 12 showed significant trends by duration of night work (P<0.01). In particular, compared to women who had never worked at night, women who had worked at night were more likely to (i) be of lower socioeconomic status [the odds ratio (OR) for ever versus never night workers of being in the lowest third of socioeconomic status was 1.15, 99% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06–1.25]; (ii) have ever used hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for the menopause (OR 1.43, 99% CI 1.33–1.55); (iii) be current smokers (OR 1.37, 99% CI 1.19–1.58); and (iv) be obese (OR 1.26, 99% CI 1.15–1.37). Compared to women who had never worked at night, women who had worked at night for ≥20 years were more likely to be (i) of lower socioeconomic status (OR 1.28, 99% CI 1.04–1.57); (ii) nulliparous (OR 1.47, 99% CI 1.12–1.91); (iii) current smokers (OR 1.63, 99% CI 1.18–2.25); and (iv) obese (OR 1.55, 99% CI 1.25–1.93). Former night workers were more likely than never night workers to report a range of sleep disturbances, including poor quality of sleep (OR 1.15, 99% CI 1.01–1.31) and having to take medication to sleep (OR 1.35, 99% CI 1.15–1.60). Conclusions Women who reported having worked at night were substantially different from those who reporting never having worked at night and many of the differences would put “ever night workers” at increased risks of cancer, vascular disease, and many other common conditions.

45 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Many of the estimated cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through reducing the prevalence of risk factors, while increasing the effectiveness of clinical care delivery, particularly for those living in rural areas and in disadvantaged populations.
Abstract: With increasing incidence and mortality, cancer is the leading cause of death in China and is a major public health problem. Because of China's massive population (1.37 billion), previous national incidence and mortality estimates have been limited to small samples of the population using data from the 1990s or based on a specific year. With high-quality data from an additional number of population-based registries now available through the National Central Cancer Registry of China, the authors analyzed data from 72 local, population-based cancer registries (2009-2011), representing 6.5% of the population, to estimate the number of new cases and cancer deaths for 2015. Data from 22 registries were used for trend analyses (2000-2011). The results indicated that an estimated 4292,000 new cancer cases and 2814,000 cancer deaths would occur in China in 2015, with lung cancer being the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Stomach, esophageal, and liver cancers were also commonly diagnosed and were identified as leading causes of cancer death. Residents of rural areas had significantly higher age-standardized (Segi population) incidence and mortality rates for all cancers combined than urban residents (213.6 per 100,000 vs 191.5 per 100,000 for incidence; 149.0 per 100,000 vs 109.5 per 100,000 for mortality, respectively). For all cancers combined, the incidence rates were stable during 2000 through 2011 for males (+0.2% per year; P = .1), whereas they increased significantly (+2.2% per year; P < .05) among females. In contrast, the mortality rates since 2006 have decreased significantly for both males (-1.4% per year; P < .05) and females (-1.1% per year; P < .05). Many of the estimated cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through reducing the prevalence of risk factors, while increasing the effectiveness of clinical care delivery, particularly for those living in rural areas and in disadvantaged populations.

13,073 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors assess the burden of 29 cancer groups over time to provide a framework for policy discussion, resource allocation, and research focus, and evaluate cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 195 countries and territories by age and sex using the Global Burden of Disease study estimation methods.
Abstract: Importance The increasing burden due to cancer and other noncommunicable diseases poses a threat to human development, which has resulted in global political commitments reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan on Non-Communicable Diseases. To determine if these commitments have resulted in improved cancer control, quantitative assessments of the cancer burden are required. Objective To assess the burden for 29 cancer groups over time to provide a framework for policy discussion, resource allocation, and research focus. Evidence Review Cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were evaluated for 195 countries and territories by age and sex using the Global Burden of Disease study estimation methods. Levels and trends were analyzed over time, as well as by the Sociodemographic Index (SDI). Changes in incident cases were categorized by changes due to epidemiological vs demographic transition. Findings In 2016, there were 17.2 million cancer cases worldwide and 8.9 million deaths. Cancer cases increased by 28% between 2006 and 2016. The smallest increase was seen in high SDI countries. Globally, population aging contributed 17%; population growth, 12%; and changes in age-specific rates, −1% to this change. The most common incident cancer globally for men was prostate cancer (1.4 million cases). The leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer (1.2 million deaths and 25.4 million DALYs). For women, the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was breast cancer (1.7 million incident cases, 535 000 deaths, and 14.9 million DALYs). In 2016, cancer caused 213.2 million DALYs globally for both sexes combined. Between 2006 and 2016, the average annual age-standardized incidence rates for all cancers combined increased in 130 of 195 countries or territories, and the average annual age-standardized death rates decreased within that timeframe in 143 of 195 countries or territories. Conclusions and Relevance Large disparities exist between countries in cancer incidence, deaths, and associated disability. Scaling up cancer prevention and ensuring universal access to cancer care are required for health equity and to fulfill the global commitments for noncommunicable disease and cancer control.

4,621 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, while for many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries.

2,756 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Christina Fitzmaurice1, Christina Fitzmaurice2, Daniel Dicker1, Daniel Dicker2, Amanda W Pain2, Hannah Hamavid2, Maziar Moradi-Lakeh2, Michael F. MacIntyre2, Michael F. MacIntyre3, Christine Allen2, Gillian M. Hansen2, Rachel Woodbrook2, Charles D.A. Wolfe2, Randah R. Hamadeh4, Ami R. Moore5, A. Werdecker6, Bradford D. Gessner, Braden Te Ao, Brian J. McMahon7, Chante Karimkhani8, Chuanhua Yu9, Graham S Cooke10, David C. Schwebel11, David O. Carpenter12, David M. Pereira13, Denis Nash, Dhruv S. Kazi14, Diego De Leo15, Dietrich Plass16, Kingsley N. Ukwaja17, George D. Thurston, Kim Yun Jin18, Edgar P. Simard19, Edward J Mills20, Eun-Kee Park21, Ferrán Catalá-López22, Gabrielle deVeber, Carolyn C. Gotay23, Gulfaraz Khan24, H. Dean Hosgood25, Itamar S. Santos26, Janet L Leasher27, Jasvinder A. Singh28, James Leigh12, Jost B. Jonas29, Juan R. Sanabria30, Justin Beardsley31, Justin Beardsley32, Kathryn H. Jacobsen33, Ken Takahashi34, Richard C. Franklin, Luca Ronfani35, Marcella Montico36, Luigi Naldi36, Marcello Tonelli, Johanna M. Geleijnse37, Max Petzold38, Mark G. Shrime39, Mark G. Shrime40, Mustafa Z. Younis41, Naohiro Yonemoto42, Nicholas J K Breitborde, Paul S. F. Yip43, Farshad Pourmalek44, Paulo A. Lotufo24, Alireza Esteghamati27, Graeme J. Hankey45, Raghib Ali46, Raimundas Lunevicius33, Reza Malekzadeh47, Robert P. Dellavalle45, Robert G. Weintraub48, Robert G. Weintraub49, Robyn M. Lucas50, Robyn M. Lucas51, Roderick J Hay52, David Rojas-Rueda, Ronny Westerman, Sadaf G. Sepanlou53, Sandra Nolte, Scott B. Patten54, Scott Weichenthal37, Semaw Ferede Abera55, Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad56, Ivy Shiue57, Tim Driscoll58, Tim Driscoll59, Tommi J. Vasankari29, Ubai Alsharif, Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar54, Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov45, W. S. Marcenes60, Wubegzier Mekonnen61, Yohannes Adama Melaku62, Yuichiro Yano56, Al Artaman63, Ismael Campos, Jennifer H MacLachlan41, Ulrich O Mueller, Daniel Kim53, Matias Trillini64, Babak Eshrati65, Hywel C Williams66, Kenji Shibuya67, Rakhi Dandona68, Kinnari S. Murthy69, Benjamin C Cowie69, Azmeraw T. Amare, Carl Abelardo T. Antonio70, Carlos A Castañeda-Orjuela71, Coen H. Van Gool, Francesco Saverio Violante, In-Hwan Oh72, Kedede Deribe73, Kjetil Søreide74, Kjetil Søreide62, Luke D. Knibbs75, Luke D. Knibbs76, Maia Kereselidze77, Mark Green78, Rosario Cardenas79, Nobhojit Roy80, Taavi Tillmann57, Yongmei Li81, Hans Krueger82, Lorenzo Monasta24, Subhojit Dey36, Sara Sheikhbahaei, Nima Hafezi-Nejad45, G Anil Kumar45, Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy69, Lalit Dandona83, Haidong Wang2, Haidong Wang69, Stein Emil Vollset2, Ali Mokdad84, Ali Mokdad75, Joshua A. Salomon2, Rafael Lozano41, Theo Vos2, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar2, Alan D. Lopez2, Christopher J L Murray51, Mohsen Naghavi2 
University of Washington1, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation2, Iran University of Medical Sciences3, King's College London4, Arabian Gulf University5, University of North Texas6, Auckland University of Technology7, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium8, Columbia University9, Wuhan University10, Imperial College London11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, University at Albany, SUNY13, City University of New York14, University of California, San Francisco15, Griffith University16, Environment Agency17, New York University18, Southern University College19, Emory University20, University of Ottawa21, Kosin University22, University of Toronto23, University of British Columbia24, United Arab Emirates University25, Albert Einstein College of Medicine26, University of São Paulo27, Nova Southeastern University28, University of Sydney29, Heidelberg University30, Case Western Reserve University31, Cancer Treatment Centers of America32, University of Oxford33, George Mason University34, James Cook University35, University of Trieste36, University of Calgary37, Wageningen University and Research Centre38, University of Gothenburg39, University of the Witwatersrand40, Harvard University41, Jackson State University42, University of Arizona43, University of Hong Kong44, Tehran University of Medical Sciences45, University of Western Australia46, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust47, University of Colorado Denver48, Veterans Health Administration49, Royal Children's Hospital50, University of Melbourne51, Australian National University52, University of Marburg53, Charité54, Health Canada55, College of Health Sciences, Bahrain56, Karolinska Institutet57, Northumbria University58, University of Edinburgh59, National Research University – Higher School of Economics60, Queen Mary University of London61, Addis Ababa University62, Northwestern University63, Northeastern University64, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research65, Arak University of Medical Sciences66, University of Nottingham67, University of Tokyo68, Public Health Foundation of India69, University of Groningen70, University of the Philippines Manila71, University of Bologna72, Kyung Hee University73, Brighton and Sussex Medical School74, University of Bergen75, Stavanger University Hospital76, University of Queensland77, National Centre for Disease Control78, University of Sheffield79, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana80, University College London81, Genentech82, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman83, Norwegian Institute of Public Health84
TL;DR: To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013, the general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study was used.
Abstract: Importance Cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Current estimates of cancer burden in individual countries and regions are necessary to inform local cancer control strategies. Objective To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013. Evidence Review The general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study was used. Cancer registries were the source for cancer incidence data as well as mortality incidence (MI) ratios. Sources for cause of death data include vital registration system data, verbal autopsy studies, and other sources. The MI ratios were used to transform incidence data to mortality estimates and cause of death estimates to incidence estimates. Cancer prevalence was estimated using MI ratios as surrogates for survival data; YLDs were calculated by multiplying prevalence estimates with disability weights, which were derived from population-based surveys; YLLs were computed by multiplying the number of estimated cancer deaths at each age with a reference life expectancy; and DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. Findings In 2013 there were 14.9 million incident cancer cases, 8.2 million deaths, and 196.3 million DALYs. Prostate cancer was the leading cause for cancer incidence (1.4 million) for men and breast cancer for women (1.8 million). Tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer was the leading cause for cancer death in men and women, with 1.6 million deaths. For men, TBL cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (24.9 million). For women, breast cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (13.1 million). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) per 100 000 and age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100 000 for both sexes in 2013 were higher in developing vs developed countries for stomach cancer (ASIR, 17 vs 14; ASDR, 15 vs 11), liver cancer (ASIR, 15 vs 7; ASDR, 16 vs 7), esophageal cancer (ASIR, 9 vs 4; ASDR, 9 vs 4), cervical cancer (ASIR, 8 vs 5; ASDR, 4 vs 2), lip and oral cavity cancer (ASIR, 7 vs 6; ASDR, 2 vs 2), and nasopharyngeal cancer (ASIR, 1.5 vs 0.4; ASDR, 1.2 vs 0.3). Between 1990 and 2013, ASIRs for all cancers combined (except nonmelanoma skin cancer and Kaposi sarcoma) increased by more than 10% in 113 countries and decreased by more than 10% in 12 of 188 countries. Conclusions and Relevance Cancer poses a major threat to public health worldwide, and incidence rates have increased in most countries since 1990. The trend is a particular threat to developing nations with health systems that are ill-equipped to deal with complex and expensive cancer treatments. The annual update on the Global Burden of Cancer will provide all stakeholders with timely estimates to guide policy efforts in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and palliation.

2,375 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work presents the results of a meta-analysis conducted at the 2016 European Oncology and Radiotherapy Guidelines Working Group (ESMO) workshop on breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis of women with atypical central giant cell granuloma (CGM) who have previously had surgery.

2,274 citations