Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
1.
Breast Cancer Res ; 24(1): 29, 2022 05 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35578306

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is uncommon in men and its aetiology is largely unknown, reflecting the limited size of studies thus far conducted. In general, number of children fathered has been found a risk factor inconsistently, and infertility not. We therefore investigated in a case-control study, the relation of risk of breast cancer in men to infertility and number of children. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a national case-control study in England and Wales, interviewing 1998 cases incident 2005-17 and 1597 male controls, which included questions on infertility and offspring. RESULTS: Risk of breast cancer was statistically significantly associated with male-origin infertility (OR = 2.03 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-3.49)) but not if a couple's infertility had been diagnosed as of origin from the female partner (OR = 0.86 (0.51-1.45)). Risk was statistically significantly raised for men who had not fathered any children (OR = 1.50 (95% CI 1.21-1.86)) compared with men who were fathers. These associations were statistically significantly present for invasive tumours but not statistically significant for in situ tumours. CONCLUSION: Our data give strong evidence that risk of breast cancer is increased for men who are infertile. The reason is not clear and needs investigation.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama Masculina , Infertilidad Masculina , Neoplasias de la Mama Masculina/epidemiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Humanos , Infertilidad Masculina/epidemiología , Masculino , Factores de Riesgo , Gales/epidemiología
2.
Int J Cancer ; 150(11): 1804-1811, 2022 06 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35049043

RESUMEN

Breast cancer is uncommon in men and knowledge about its causation limited. Obesity is a risk factor but there has been no investigation of whether weight change is an independent risk factor, as it is in women. In a national case-control study, 1998 men with breast cancer incident in England and Wales during 2005 to 2017 and 1597 male controls were interviewed about risk factors for breast cancer including anthropometric factors at several ages. Relative risks of breast cancer in relation to changes in body mass index (BMI) and waist/height ratios at these ages were obtained by logistic regression modelling. There were significant trends of increasing breast cancer risk with increase in BMI from age 20 to 40 (odds ratio [OR] 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.17] per 2 kg/m2 increase in BMI; P < .001), and from age 40 to 60 (OR 1.12 [1.04-1.20]; P = .003), and with increase in self-reported adiposity compared to peers at age 11 to BMI compared with peers at age 20 (OR 1.19 [1.09-1.30]; P < .001). Increase in waist/height ratio from age 20 to 5 years before diagnosis was also highly significantly associated with risk (OR 1.13 [1.08-1.19]; P < .001). The associations with increases in BMI and waist/height ratio were significant independently of each other and of BMI or waist/height ratio at the start of the period of change analysed, and effects were similar for invasive and in situ tumours separately. Increases in BMI and abdominal obesity are each risk factors for breast cancer in men, independently of obesity per se. These associations might relate to increasing oestrogen levels with weight gain, but this needs investigation.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama Masculina , Neoplasias de la Mama , Adulto , Índice de Masa Corporal , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/etiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Factores de Riesgo , Gales/epidemiología , Aumento de Peso , Adulto Joven
3.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 22(1): 314, 2022 12 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36476324

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: When conducting a randomised controlled trial, there exist many different methods to allocate participants, and a vast array of evidence-based opinions on which methods are the most effective at doing this, leading to differing use of these methods. There is also evidence that study characteristics affect the performance of these methods, but it is unknown whether the study design affects researchers' decision when choosing a method. METHODS: We conducted a review of papers published in five journals in 2019 to assess which randomisation methods are most commonly being used, as well as identifying which aspects of study design, if any, are associated with the choice of randomisation method. Randomisation methodology use was compared with a similar review conducted in 2014. RESULTS: The most used randomisation method in this review is block stratification used in 162/330 trials. A combination of simple, randomisation, block randomisation, stratification and minimisation make up 318/330 trials, with only a small number of more novel methods being used, although this number has increased marginally since 2014. More complex methods such as stratification and minimisation seem to be used in larger multicentre studies. CONCLUSIONS: Within this review, most methods used can be classified using a combination of simple, block stratification and minimisation, suggesting that there is not much if any increase in the uptake of newer more novel methods. There seems to be a noticeable polarisation of method use, with an increase in the use of simple methods, but an increase in the complexity of more complex methods, with greater numbers of variables included in the analysis, and a greater number of strata.


Asunto(s)
Proyectos de Investigación , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
4.
Trials ; 25(1): 199, 2024 Mar 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38509527

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There exist many different methods of allocating participants to treatment groups during a randomised controlled trial. Although there is research that explores trial characteristics that are associated with the choice of method, there is still a lot of variety in practice not explained. This study used qualitative methods to explore more deeply the motivations behind researchers' choice of randomisation, and which features of the method they use to evaluate the performance of these methods. METHODS: Data was collected from online focus groups with various stakeholders involved in the randomisation process. Focus groups were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants from twenty clinical trials units across the UK were recruited to take part in one of four focus groups. Four main themes were identified: how randomisation methods are selected; researchers' opinions of the different methods; which features of the method are desirable and ways to measure method features. Most researchers agree that the randomisation method should be selected based on key trial characteristics; however, for many, a unit standard is in place. Opinions of methods were varied with some participants favouring stratified blocks and others favouring minimisation. This was generally due to researchers' perception of the effect these methods had on balance and predictability. Generally, predictability was considered more important than balance as adjustments cannot be made for it; however, most researchers felt that the importance of these two methods was dependent on the design of the study. Balance is usually evaluated by tabulating variables by treatment arm and looking for perceived imbalances, predictability was generally considered much harder to measure, partly due to differing definitions. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variety in practice on how randomisation methods are selected and researcher's opinions on methods. The difference in practice observed when looking at randomisation method selection can be explained by a difference in unit practice, and also by a difference in researchers prioritisation of balance and predictability. The findings of this study show a need for more guidance on randomisation method selection.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Cualitativa , Humanos , Grupos Focales
5.
Leuk Lymphoma ; 63(3): 562-572, 2022 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34738860

RESUMEN

Thyroid abnormalities are well reported following childhood treatment for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL). Limited information exists for adult patients and after modern treatments. We analyzed risks of thyroid disorders in 237 female participants treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital 1970-2015. Multivariable analyses of risk according to treatment and time-related factors, survival analyses, and Cox regression modeling were undertaken. Overall, 33.8% of patients reported thyroid disorders (hypothyroidism 30.0% and thyroid nodules 6.8%). Cumulative prevalence was 42.9% by 40 years follow-up. Risks were greatest after supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy (RR = 5.0, p < 0.001), and increasing dose (RR = 1.03/Gy, p < 0.001). There was no association with a chemotherapy agent. Risks of thyroid disease were as raised following adult as childhood treatment. There was no trend in risk by decade of supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy treatment. Risks of thyroid disease after supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy are as great after adult as childhood treatment and persist after more recent treatment periods.


Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos , Enfermedad de Hodgkin , Enfermedades de la Tiroides , Adulto , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Niño , Femenino , Enfermedad de Hodgkin/epidemiología , Enfermedad de Hodgkin/etiología , Enfermedad de Hodgkin/terapia , Humanos , Factores de Riesgo , Sobrevivientes , Enfermedades de la Tiroides/diagnóstico , Enfermedades de la Tiroides/epidemiología , Enfermedades de la Tiroides/etiología
6.
JNCI Cancer Spectr ; 5(5)2021 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34738071

RESUMEN

Background: Breast cancer is rare in men, and information on its causes is very limited from studies that have generally been small. Adult obesity has been shown as a risk factor, but more detailed anthropometric relations have not been investigated. Methods: We conducted an interview population-based case-control study of breast cancer in men in England and Wales including 1998 cases incident during 2005-2017 at ages younger than 80 years and 1597 male controls, with questions asked about a range of anthropometric variables at several ages. All tests of statistical significance were 2-sided. Results: Risk of breast cancer statistically significantly increased with increasing body mass index (BMI) at ages 20 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02 to 1.12 per 2-unit change in BMI), 40 (OR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.16), and 60 (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.19) years, but there was also an indication of raised risk for the lowest BMIs. Large waist circumference 5 years before interview was more strongly associated than was BMI with risk, and each showed independent associations. Associations were similar for invasive and in situ tumors separately and stronger for HER2-positive than HER2-negative tumors. Of the tumors, 99% were estrogen receptor positive. Conclusions: Obesity at all adult ages, particularly recent abdominal obesity, is associated with raised risk of breast cancer in men, probably because of the conversion of testosterone to estrogen by aromatase in adipose tissue. The association is particularly strong for HER2-expressing tumors.


Asunto(s)
Índice de Masa Corporal , Neoplasias de la Mama Masculina/etiología , Obesidad/complicaciones , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Peso Corporal , Neoplasias de la Mama Masculina/química , Neoplasias de la Mama Masculina/epidemiología , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Intervalos de Confianza , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Obesidad/epidemiología , Obesidad Abdominal/complicaciones , Oportunidad Relativa , Factores de Riesgo , Circunferencia de la Cintura , Gales/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA