Institution
Cancer Council New South Wales
Other•Sydney, New South Wales, Australia•
About: Cancer Council New South Wales is a other organization based out in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 272 authors who have published 888 publications receiving 32372 citations.
Topics: Population, Cancer, Cervical screening, Cancer registry, Cervical cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Cambridge1, National Institutes of Health2, University of Southern California3, International Agency for Research on Cancer4, Academia Sinica5, Princess Anne Hospital6, St Mary's Hospital7, University of London8, The Breast Cancer Research Foundation9, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute10, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre11, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute12, University of Copenhagen13, Curie Institute14, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine15, University of Helsinki16, Seoul National University17, University of Ulsan18, Harvard University19, Karolinska Institutet20, Agency for Science, Technology and Research21, Hannover Medical School22, Leiden University23, Erasmus University Rotterdam24, University of Minnesota25, University of Sheffield26, Mayo Clinic27, VU University Amsterdam28, Carlos III Health Institute29, University of Melbourne30, Cancer Council New South Wales31, University of Otago32, Cancer Council Victoria33, University of Tübingen34, Bosch35, German Cancer Research Center36, University of Eastern Finland37
TL;DR: To identify further susceptibility alleles, a two-stage genome-wide association study in 4,398 breast cancer cases and 4,316 controls was conducted, followed by a third stage in which 30 single nucleotide polymorphisms were tested for confirmation.
Abstract: Breast cancer exhibits familial aggregation, consistent with variation in genetic susceptibility to the disease. Known susceptibility genes account for less than 25% of the familial risk of breast cancer, and the residual genetic variance is likely to be due to variants conferring more moderate risks. To identify further susceptibility alleles, we conducted a two-stage genome-wide association study in 4,398 breast cancer cases and 4,316 controls, followed by a third stage in which 30 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were tested for confirmation in 21,860 cases and 22,578 controls from 22 studies. We used 227,876 SNPs that were estimated to correlate with 77% of known common SNPs in Europeans at r2.0.5. SNPs in five novel independent loci exhibited strong and consistent evidence of association with breast cancer (P,1027). Four of these contain plausible causative genes (FGFR2, TNRC9, MAP3K1 and LSP1). At the second stage, 1,792 SNPs were significant at the P,0.05 level compared with an estimated 1,343 that would be expected by chance, indicating that many additional common susceptibility alleles may be identifiable by this approach.
2,288 citations
••
TL;DR: The launching of a national initiative to establish sites of service excellence in urban and rural settings throughout South Africa to trial, assess, and implement integrated care interventions for chronic infectious and non-communicable diseases is urged.
1,019 citations
••
TL;DR: The objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach.
Abstract: A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.
975 citations
••
TL;DR: A comprehensive summation of the major barriers to working with various disadvantaged groups is provided, along with proposed strategies for addressing each of the identified types of barriers.
Abstract: Background
This study aims to review the literature regarding the barriers to sampling, recruitment, participation, and retention of members of socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in health research and strategies for increasing the amount of health research conducted with socially disadvantaged groups.
890 citations
••
TL;DR: The effects of menarche and menopause on breast cancer risk might not be acting merely by lengthening women's total number of reproductive years, and endogenous ovarian hormones are more relevant for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for ostrogens receptor-negative disease and for lobular than for ductal tumours.
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Menarche and menopause mark the onset and cessation, respectively, of ovarian activity associated with reproduction, and affect breast cancer risk. Our aim was to assess the strengths of their effects and determine whether they depend on characteristics of the tumours or the affected women.METHODS:Individual data from 117 epidemiological studies, including 118 964 women with invasive breast cancer and 306 091 without the disease, none of whom had used menopausal hormone therapy, were included in the analyses. We calculated adjusted relative risks (RRs) associated with menarche and menopause for breast cancer overall, and by tumour histology and by oestrogen receptor expression.FINDINGS:Breast cancer risk increased by a factor of 1·050 (95% CI 1·044-1·057; p<0·0001) for every year younger at menarche, and independently by a smaller amount (1·029, 1·025-1·032; p<0·0001), for every year older at menopause. Premenopausal women had a greater risk of breast cancer than postmenopausal women of an identical age (RR at age 45-54 years 1·43, 1·33-1·52, p<0·001). All three of these associations were attenuated by increasing adiposity among postmenopausal women, but did not vary materially by women's year of birth, ethnic origin, childbearing history, smoking, alcohol consumption, or hormonal contraceptive use. All three associations were stronger for lobular than for ductal tumours (p<0·006 for each comparison). The effect of menopause in women of an identical age and trends by age at menopause were stronger for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease (p<0·01 for both comparisons).INTERPRETATION:The effects of menarche and menopause on breast cancer risk might not be acting merely by lengthening women's total number of reproductive years. Endogenous ovarian hormones are more relevant for oestrogen receptor-positive disease than for oestrogen receptor-negative disease and for lobular than for ductal tumours.
759 citations
Authors
Showing all 277 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
David Smith | 129 | 2184 | 100917 |
Phyllis Butow | 102 | 731 | 37752 |
Bruce K. Armstrong | 89 | 532 | 32270 |
Jacob George | 87 | 507 | 36153 |
Katherine M. White | 70 | 446 | 20275 |
Margaret R. E. McCredie | 63 | 135 | 16348 |
Afaf Girgis | 60 | 313 | 13119 |
Ian N. Olver | 54 | 402 | 11120 |
Dianne L. O'Connell | 52 | 253 | 17580 |
Anne Kricker | 52 | 149 | 9899 |
Claire M. Vajdic | 49 | 188 | 10317 |
Freddy Sitas | 48 | 162 | 13237 |
Julia Newton-Bishop | 47 | 175 | 8515 |
Bridget Kelly | 47 | 164 | 6596 |
Jennifer H. Martin | 46 | 352 | 8433 |