Institution
Hospital Clínico San Carlos
Healthcare•Madrid, Spain•
About: Hospital Clínico San Carlos is a healthcare organization based out in Madrid, Spain. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 7160 authors who have published 9681 publications receiving 193574 citations. The organization is also known as: Hospital Clinico San Carlos.
Topics: Population, Medicine, Myocardial infarction, Cancer, Breast cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Turku University Hospital1, National University of Ireland, Galway2, University of Catania3, University of Naples Federico II4, University of Paris5, Bispebjerg Hospital6, University of Sheffield7, University of Cambridge8, Stavanger University Hospital9, Oslo University Hospital10, Hospital Clínico San Carlos11, Mayo Clinic12, University of Western Brittany13, Rabin Medical Center14, Slovak Medical University15, Saarland University16, University of Barcelona17, University of Brescia18, University of Bern19, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg20, Leiden University Medical Center21
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present guidelines for the management of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), which is a pathological process characterized by atherosclerotic plaque accumulation in the epicardial arteries.
Abstract: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a pathological process characterized by atherosclerotic plaque accumulation in the epicardial arteries, whether obstructive or non-obstructive. This process can be modified by lifestyle adjustments, pharmacological therapies, and invasive interventions designed to achieve disease stabilization or regression. The disease can have long, stable periods but can also become unstable at any time, typically due to an acute atherothrombotic event caused by plaque rupture or erosion. However, the disease is chronic, most often progressive, and hence serious, even in clinically apparently silent periods. The dynamic nature of the CAD process results in various clinical presentations, which can be conveniently categorized as either acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). The Guidelines presented here refer to the management of patients with CCS. The natural history of CCS is illustrated in Figure 1.
3,448 citations
••
Sage Bionetworks1, Autonomous University of Barcelona2, University of Amsterdam3, City University of Hong Kong4, Netherlands Cancer Institute5, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne8, Institut Gustave Roussy9, Hospital Clínico San Carlos10, Oregon Health & Science University11, Paris Descartes University12, University of Lausanne13, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven14
TL;DR: An international consortium dedicated to large-scale data sharing and analytics across expert groups is formed, showing marked interconnectivity between six independent classification systems coalescing into four consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) with distinguishing features.
Abstract: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a frequently lethal disease with heterogeneous outcomes and drug responses. To resolve inconsistencies among the reported gene expression-based CRC classifications and facilitate clinical translation, we formed an international consortium dedicated to large-scale data sharing and analytics across expert groups. We show marked interconnectivity between six independent classification systems coalescing into four consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) with distinguishing features: CMS1 (microsatellite instability immune, 14%), hypermutated, microsatellite unstable and strong immune activation; CMS2 (canonical, 37%), epithelial, marked WNT and MYC signaling activation; CMS3 (metabolic, 13%), epithelial and evident metabolic dysregulation; and CMS4 (mesenchymal, 23%), prominent transforming growth factor-β activation, stromal invasion and angiogenesis. Samples with mixed features (13%) possibly represent a transition phenotype or intratumoral heterogeneity. We consider the CMS groups the most robust classification system currently available for CRC-with clear biological interpretability-and the basis for future clinical stratification and subtype-based targeted interventions.
3,351 citations
••
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven1, University of Valencia2, Radboud University Nijmegen3, Sheba Medical Center4, University of Turin5, Hospital Clínico San Carlos6, Université Paris-Saclay7, University of Pisa8, Mayo Clinic9, University of São Paulo10, The Chinese University of Hong Kong11, University of Oxford12, Helsinki University Central Hospital13, University of Helsinki14, Institute of Cancer Research15, Bank of Cyprus16, University of Ioannina17, Odense University Hospital18, University of Amsterdam19, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg20, Geneva College21, Medical University of Vienna22, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg23, Hebron University24, Imperial College Healthcare25
TL;DR: These ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.
2,382 citations
••
University of Cambridge1, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute2, University of Melbourne3, Netherlands Cancer Institute4, University of Amsterdam5, University of Warwick6, Cancer Council Victoria7, University of Utah8, Columbia University9, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust10, Chapel Allerton Hospital11, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust12, National Institute for Health Research13, University of Glasgow14, St George's, University of London15, Curie Institute16, Paris Descartes University17, Erasmus University Rotterdam18, Radboud University Nijmegen19, VU University Medical Center20, Cancer Prevention Institute of California21, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute22, University of Toronto23, Fox Chase Cancer Center24, Huntsman Cancer Institute25, Leipzig University26, German Cancer Research Center27, University of Cologne28, Hospital Clínico San Carlos29, Pomeranian Medical University30, Laval University31, University of New South Wales32, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre33, St. Vincent's Health System34, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute35, Medical University of Vienna36, Copenhagen University Hospital37, Karolinska Institutet38, Lund University39
TL;DR: To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location, a large cohort study recruited in 1997-2011 provides estimates of cancer risk based on BRCA1 and BRCa2 mutation carrier status.
Abstract: Importance: The clinical management of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers requires accurate, prospective cancer risk estimates. Objectives: To estimate age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for mutation carriers and to evaluate risk modification by family cancer history and mutation location. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective cohort study of 6036 BRCA1 and 3820 BRCA2 female carriers (5046 unaffected and 4810 with breast or ovarian cancer or both at baseline) recruited in 1997-2011 through the International BRCA1/2 Carrier Cohort Study, the Breast Cancer Family Registry and the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer, with ascertainment through family clinics (94%) and population-based studies (6%). The majority were from large national studies in the United Kingdom (EMBRACE), the Netherlands (HEBON), and France (GENEPSO). Follow-up ended December 2013; median follow-up was 5 years. Exposures: BRCA1/2 mutations, family cancer history, and mutation location. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual incidences, standardized incidence ratios, and cumulative risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer. Results: Among 3886 women (median age, 38 years; interquartile range [IQR], 30-46 years) eligible for the breast cancer analysis, 5066 women (median age, 38 years; IQR, 31-47 years) eligible for the ovarian cancer analysis, and 2213 women (median age, 47 years; IQR, 40-55 years) eligible for the contralateral breast cancer analysis, 426 were diagnosed with breast cancer, 109 with ovarian cancer, and 245 with contralateral breast cancer during follow-up. The cumulative breast cancer risk to age 80 years was 72% (95% CI, 65%-79%) for BRCA1 and 69% (95% CI, 61%-77%) for BRCA2 carriers. Breast cancer incidences increased rapidly in early adulthood until ages 30 to 40 years for BRCA1 and until ages 40 to 50 years for BRCA2 carriers, then remained at a similar, constant incidence (20-30 per 1000 person-years) until age 80 years. The cumulative ovarian cancer risk to age 80 years was 44% (95% CI, 36%-53%) for BRCA1 and 17% (95% CI, 11%-25%) for BRCA2 carriers. For contralateral breast cancer, the cumulative risk 20 years after breast cancer diagnosis was 40% (95% CI, 35%-45%) for BRCA1 and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) for BRCA2 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] for comparing BRCA2 vs BRCA1, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.82; P=.001 for difference). Breast cancer risk increased with increasing number of first- and second-degree relatives diagnosed as having breast cancer for both BRCA1 (HR for ≥2 vs 0 affected relatives, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.41-2.82; P<.001 for trend) and BRCA2 carriers (HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.08-3.37; P=.02 for trend). Breast cancer risk was higher if mutations were located outside vs within the regions bounded by positions c.2282-c.4071 in BRCA1 (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.11-1.93; P=.007) and c.2831-c.6401 in BRCA2 (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.74; P<.001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings provide estimates of cancer risk based on BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carrier status using prospective data collection and demonstrate the potential importance of family history and mutation location in risk assessment.
1,733 citations
••
University of Bern1, Imperial College London2, University Hospital of Basel3, Columbia University Medical Center4, University of Córdoba (Spain)5, Hospital Clínico San Carlos6, French Institute of Health and Medical Research7, Cardiovascular Institute of the South8, University of Pisa9, University of Bristol10
TL;DR: A network meta-analysis with a mixed-treatment comparison method to combine direct within-trial comparisons between stents with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation found sirolimus-eluting stents seem to be clinically better than bare-metal and paclitaxel-eluted stents.
1,436 citations
Authors
Showing all 7197 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Valentin Fuster | 179 | 1462 | 185164 |
M. I. Martínez | 134 | 1251 | 79885 |
Antoni Torres | 120 | 1238 | 65049 |
José Luis Zamorano | 105 | 695 | 133396 |
Xavier Montalban | 95 | 762 | 52842 |
Luis M. Ruilope | 94 | 841 | 97778 |
Dominick J. Angiolillo | 92 | 635 | 34262 |
Josep Rodés-Cabau | 87 | 610 | 29214 |
Douglas R. Higgs | 83 | 319 | 23665 |
Joan Bladé | 81 | 453 | 33431 |
Carlos Macaya | 79 | 699 | 29702 |
Darrel P. Francis | 78 | 476 | 25149 |
Rafael Cantón | 78 | 575 | 29702 |
Virginia Pascual | 76 | 197 | 26649 |
Alun D. Hughes | 76 | 578 | 21432 |