Bray, F. et al. International most cancers statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 international locations. CA Most cancers J. Clin. 68, 394–424 (2018).
Sørlie, T. et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with medical implications. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10869–10874 (2001).
Blows, F. M. et al. Subtyping of breast most cancers by immunohistochemistry to analyze a relationship between subtype and brief and long run survival: a collaborative evaluation of knowledge for 10,159 circumstances from 12 research. PLoS Med. 7, e1000279 (2010).
Curtis, C. et al. The genomic and transcriptomic structure of two,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486, 346–352 (2012).
Yang, X. R. et al. Associations of breast most cancers threat components with tumor subtypes: a pooled evaluation from the Breast Most cancers Affiliation Consortium research. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 103, 250–263 (2011).
Broeks, A. et al. Low penetrance breast most cancers susceptibility loci are related to particular breast tumor subtypes: findings from the Breast Most cancers Affiliation Consortium. Hum. Mol. Genet. 20, 3289–3303 (2011).
Turkoz, F. P. et al. Affiliation between frequent threat components and molecular subtypes in breast most cancers sufferers. Breast 22, 344–350 (2013).
Waks, A. G. & Winer, E. P. Breast most cancers therapy: a evaluation. JAMA 321, 288–300 (2019).
Most cancers Analysis UK. Breast most cancers incidence by age https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer/incidence-invasive (2019).
Netherlands Most cancers Registry. Incidence of most cancers within the Netherlands http://www.dutchcancerfigures.nl/ (2019).
Nelson, H. D. et al. Threat components for breast most cancers for ladies aged 40 to 49 years: a scientific evaluation and meta-analysis. Ann. Intern. Med. 156, 635–648 (2012).
Brinton, L., Gaudet, M. & Gierach, G. in Most cancers Epidemiology Prevention (eds Thun, M., Linet, M., Cerhan, J., Haiman, C. & Schottenfeld, D.) 861–888 (Oxford College Press, 2018).
Winters, S., Martin, C., Murphy, D. & Shokar, N. Ok. Breast most cancers epidemiology, prevention and screening. Prog. Mol. Biol. Transl Sci. 151, 1–32 (2017).
Hartmann, L. C. et al. Benign breast illness and the chance of breast most cancers. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 229–237 (2005).
Moorthie, S. et al. Personalised Prevention in Breast Most cancers: the Coverage Panorama (College of Cambridge, 2017).
NICE. Familial Breast Most cancers: Classification, Care and Managing Breast Most cancers and Associated Dangers in Individuals with A Household Historical past of Breast Most cancers (NICE, 2013).
Owens, D. Ok. et al. Threat evaluation, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related most cancers. JAMA 322, 652 (2019).
Alexander, F. E. et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 353, 1903–1908 (1999).
Habbema, J. D., van Oortmarssen, G. J., van Putten, D. J., Lubbe, J. T. & van der Maas, P. J. Age-specific discount in breast most cancers mortality by screening: an evaluation of the outcomes of the Well being Insurance coverage Plan of Higher New York research. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 77, 317–320 (1986).
Nystrom, L. et al. Lengthy-term results of mammography screening: up to date overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359, 909–919 (2002).
Miller, A. B., To, T., Baines, C. J. & Wall, C. The Canadian Nationwide Breast Screening Research-1: breast most cancers mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in ladies age 40 to 49 years. Ann. Intern. Med. 137, 305–312 (2002).
Moss, S. M. et al. Impact of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast most cancers mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised managed trial. Lancet 368, 2053–2060 (2006).
Welch, H. G., Prorok, P. C., O’Malley, A. J. & Kramer, B. S. Breast-cancer tumor dimension, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1438–1447 (2016).
Drukker, C. A. et al. Mammographic screening detects low-risk tumor biology breast cancers. Breast Most cancers Res. Deal with. 144, 103–111 (2014).
Esserman, L., Shieh, Y. & Thompson, I. Rethinking screening for breast most cancers and prostate most cancers. JAMA 302, 1685–1692 (2009).
Pashayan, N., Morris, S., Gilbert, F. J. & Pharoah, P. D. P. Value-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm ratio of risk-stratified screening for breast most cancers a life-table mannequin. JAMA Oncol. 4, 1–7 (2018).
Trentham-Dietz, A. et al. Tailoring breast most cancers screening intervals by breast density and threat for ladies aged 50 years or older: collaborative modeling of screening outcomes. Ann. Intern. Med. 165, 700 (2016).
Burton, H. et al. Public well being implications from COGS and potential for threat stratification and screening. Nat. Genet. 45, 349–351 (2013).
Horizon 2020. B-CAST. Breast most cancers stratification: understanding the determinants of threat and prognosis of molecular subtypes https://cordis.europa.eu/venture/rcn/193256/factsheet/en (2020).
Horizon 2020. BRIDGES. Breast most cancers threat after diagnostic gene sequencing https://cordis.europa.eu/venture/rcn/193315/factsheet/en (2019).
European Analysis Council. BRCA-ERC. Understanding most cancers growth in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers for improved Early detection and Threat Management https://cordis.europa.eu/venture/rcn/210990/factsheet/en (2017).
Horizon 2020. FORECEE. Feminine most cancers prediction utilizing cervical omics to individualise screening and prevention https://cordis.europa.eu/venture/rcn/193298/factsheet/en (2019).
Horizon 2020. MyPeBS. Worldwide randomized research evaluating customized, risk-stratified to straightforward breast most cancers screening in ladies aged 40-70 https://cordis.europa.eu/venture/rcn/212694/factsheet/en (2019).
WISDOM. The WISDOM research https://knowledge.safe.drive.com/portal/ (2020).
Horizon 2020. EU-TOPIA. EU-TOPIA: in the direction of improved screening for breast, cervical and colorectal most cancers in all of europe https://cordis.europa.eu/venture/rcn/193304/factsheet/en (2019).
GenomeQuébec. PERSPECTIVE I&I. Personalised threat evaluation for prevention and early detection of breast most cancers: integration and implementation http://www.genomequebec.com/211-en/venture/personalized-risk-assessment-for-prevention-and-early-detection-of-breast-cancer-integration-and-implementation/ (2020).
Forestall Breast Most cancers. PROCAS 2. Predicting the chance of most cancers at screening 2nd stage https://preventbreastcancer.org.uk/breast-cancer-research/research-projects/early-detection-screening/procas/ (2016).
Rainey, L. et al. Are we prepared for the problem of implementing risk-based breast most cancers screening and first prevention? Breast 39, 24–32 (2018).
The Well being Basis. Proof Scan: Advanced Adaptive Methods (The Well being Basis, 2010).
Michailidou, Ok. et al. Affiliation evaluation identifies 65 new breast most cancers threat loci. Nature 551, 92–94 (2017).
Milne, R. L. et al. Identification of ten variants related to threat of estrogen-receptor-negative breast most cancers. Nat. Genet. 49, 1767–1778 (2017).
Easton, D. F. et al. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer threat. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2243–2257 (2015).
Rudolph, A. et al. Joint associations of a polygenic threat rating and environmental threat components for breast most cancers within the Breast Most cancers Affiliation Consortium. Int. J. Epidemiol. 47, 526–536 (2018).
Mavaddat, N. et al. Polygenic threat scores for prediction of breast most cancers and breast most cancers subtypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104, 21–34 (2019).
Lee, A. et al. BOADICEA: a complete breast most cancers threat prediction mannequin incorporating genetic and nongenetic threat components. Genet. Med. 21, 1708–1718 (2019).
Läll, Ok. et al. Polygenic prediction of breast most cancers: comparability of genetic predictors and implications for threat stratification. BMC Most cancers 19, 557 (2019).
Choudhury, P. P. et al. Comparative validation of breast most cancers threat prediction fashions and projections for future threat stratification. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 112, 278–285 (2020).
LaDuca, H. et al. A medical information to hereditary most cancers panel testing: analysis of gene-specific most cancers associations and sensitivity of genetic testing standards in a cohort of 165,000 high-risk sufferers. Genet. Med. 22, 407–415 (2020).
Schmidt, M. Ok. et al. Age- and tumor subtype-specific breast most cancers threat estimates for CHEK2*1100delC carriers. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 2750–2760 (2016).
Foulkes, W. D. et al. Estrogen receptor standing in BRCA1- and BRCA2-related breast most cancers. Clin. Most cancers Res. 10, 2029–2034 (2004).
Fletcher, O. et al. Missense variants in ATM in 26,101 breast most cancers circumstances and 29,842 controls. Most cancers Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 19, 2143–2151 (2010).
Gao, P., Ma, N., Li, M., Tian, Q.-B. & Liu, D.-W. Useful variants in NBS1 and most cancers threat: proof from a meta-analysis of 60 publications with 111 particular person research. Mutagenesis 28, 683–697 (2013).
Weitzel, J. N. et al. Pathogenic and sure pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, and different recognized breast most cancers susceptibility genes amongst 1054 BRCA damaging Hispanics with breast most cancers. Most cancers 125, 2829–2836 (2019).
Parsons, M. T. et al. Giant scale multifactorial chance quantitative evaluation of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants: an ENIGMA useful resource to help medical variant classification. Hum. Mutat. 40, 1557–1578 (2019).
Kleiblova, P. et al. Identification of deleterious germline CHEK2 mutations and their affiliation with breast and ovarian most cancers. Int. J. Most cancers 145, ijc.32385 (2019).
Boonen, R. A. C. M. et al. Useful evaluation of genetic variants within the high-risk breast most cancers susceptibility gene PALB2. Nat. Commun. 10, 5296 (2019).
Lee, Ok. et al. Scientific validity evaluation of genes steadily examined on hereditary breast and ovarian most cancers susceptibility sequencing panels. Genet. Med. 21, 1497–1506 (2019).
Teschendorff, A. E. et al. DNA methylation outliers in regular breast tissue establish area defects which might be enriched in most cancers. Nat. Commun. 7, 10478 (2016).
Curtius, Ok., Wright, N. A. & Graham, T. A. An evolutionary perspective on area cancerization. Nat. Rev. Most cancers 18, 19–32 (2018).
Yang, Y. et al. Genetically predicted ranges of DNA methylation biomarkers and breast most cancers threat: information from 228,951 ladies of European descent. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 112, 295–304 (2020).
Xu, Z., Sandler, D. P. & Taylor, J. A. Blood DNA methylation and breast most cancers: a potential case-cohort evaluation within the Sister research. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 112, 87–94 (2020).
Teschendorff, A. E. et al. Age-dependent DNA methylation of genes which might be suppressed in stem cells is a trademark of most cancers. Genome Res. 20, 440–446 (2010).
Knower, Ok. C., To, S. Q., Leung, Y.-Ok., Ho, S.-M. & Clyne, C. D. Endocrine disruption of the epigenome: a breast most cancers hyperlink. Endocr. Relat. Most cancers 21, T33–T55 (2014).
Levine, M. E. et al. Menopause accelerates organic ageing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 9327–9332 (2016).
Widschwendter, M. et al. Epigenome-based most cancers threat prediction: rationale, alternatives and challenges. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 15, 292–309 (2018).
Bodelon, C. et al. Blood DNA methylation and breast most cancers threat: a meta-analysis of 4 potential cohort research. Breast Most cancers Res. 21, 62 (2019).
Teschendorff, A. E. et al. An epigenetic signature in peripheral blood predicts lively ovarian most cancers. PLoS One 4, e8274 (2009).
Key, T. J. et al. Intercourse hormones and threat of breast most cancers in premenopausal ladies: a collaborative reanalysis of particular person participant information from seven potential research. Lancet Oncol. 14, 1009–1019 (2013).
Key, T. J. et al. Physique mass index, serum intercourse hormones, and breast most cancers threat in postmenopausal ladies. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 95, 1218–1226 (2003).
Fourkala, E.-O. et al. Affiliation of serum intercourse steroid receptor bioactivity and intercourse steroid hormones with breast most cancers threat in postmenopausal ladies. Endocr. Relat. Most cancers 19, 137–147 (2012).
Bau, D.-T., Mau, Y.-C., Ding, S.-L., Wu, P.-E. & Shen, C.-Y. DNA double-strand break restore capability and threat of breast most cancers. Carcinogenesis 28, 1726–1730 (2007).
Machella, N. et al. Double-strand breaks restore in lymphoblastoid cell strains from sisters discordant for breast most cancers from the New York website of the BCFR. Carcinogenesis 29, 1367–1372 (2008).
Gail, M. H. et al. Projecting individualized chances of creating breast most cancers for white females who’re being examined yearly. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 81, 1879–1886 (1989).
Tice, J. A. et al. Utilizing medical components and mammographic breast density to estimate breast most cancers threat: growth and validation of a brand new predictive mannequin. Ann. Intern. Med. 148, 337–347 (2008).
Garcia-Closas, M., Gunsoy, N. B. & Chatterjee, N. Mixed associations of genetic and environmental threat components: implications for prevention of breast most cancers. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 106, 1–6 (2014).
Maas, P. et al. Breast most cancers threat from modifiable and nonmodifiable threat components amongst white ladies in the US. JAMA Oncol. 2, 1295–1302 (2016).
Chatterjee, N., Shi, J. & García-Closas, M. Growing and evaluating polygenic threat prediction fashions for stratified illness prevention. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 392–406 (2016).
Tyrer, J., Duffy, S. W. & Cuzick, J. A breast most cancers prediction mannequin incorporating familial and private threat components. Stat. Med. 23, 1111–1130 (2004).
Antoniou, A. C. et al. The BOADICEA mannequin of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. Br. J. Most cancers 98, 1457–1466 (2008).
Zimmern, R. L. & Kroese, M. The analysis of genetic assessments. J. Public. Well being . 29, 246–250 (2007).
College of Cambridge. BCAC — The Breast Most cancers Affiliation Consortium http://bcac.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/ (2020).
College of Cambridge. Centre for Most cancers Genetic Epidemiology. CIMBA — Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 http://cimba.ccge.medschl.cam.ac.uk/ (2020).
Louro, J. et al. A scientific evaluation and high quality evaluation of individualised breast most cancers threat prediction fashions. Br. J. Most cancers 121, 76–85 (2019).
Terry, M. B. et al. 10-year efficiency of 4 fashions of breast most cancers threat: a validation research. Lancet Oncol. 20, 504–517 (2019).
Choudhury, P. P. et al. iCARE: An R package deal to construct, validate and apply absolute threat fashions. PLoS One 5, e0228198 (2020).
Good, A. A multi-dimensional mannequin of medical utility. Int. J. Qual. Well being Care 18, 377–382 (2006).
Sanderson, S. et al. How can the analysis of genetic assessments be enhanced? Classes realized from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic assessments in the UK. Genet. Med. 7, 495–500 (2005).
Grosse, S. D. & Khoury, M. J. What’s the medical utility of genetic testing? Genet. Med. 8, 448–450 (2006).
Garcia-Closas, M. et al. Confluence: uncovering breast most cancers genetics https://dceg.most cancers.gov/analysis/cancer-types/breast-cancer/confluence-study-project.pdf (2019)
Wainschtein, P. et al. Restoration of trait heritability from entire genome sequence information. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/588020 (2019).
Yala, A., Lehman, C., Schuster, T., Portnoi, T. & Barzilay, R. A deep studying mammography-based mannequin for improved breast most cancers threat prediction. Radiology 292, 60–66 (2019).
Arasu, V. A. et al. Inhabitants-based evaluation of the affiliation between magnetic resonance imaging background parenchymal enhancement and future major breast most cancers threat. J. Clin. Oncol. 37, 954–963 (2019).
Malkov, S. et al. Mammographic texture and threat of breast most cancers by tumor kind and estrogen receptor standing. Breast Most cancers Res. 18, 122 (2016).
Gastounioti, A., Conant, E. F. & Kontos, D. Past breast density: a evaluation on the advancing function of parenchymal texture evaluation in breast most cancers threat evaluation. Breast Most cancers Res. 18, 91 (2016).
Wang, C. et al. A novel and totally automated mammographic texture evaluation for threat prediction: outcomes from two case-control research. Breast Most cancers Res. 19, 114 (2017).
Nguyen, T. L. et al. Predicting interval and screen-detected breast cancers from mammographic density outlined by totally different brightness thresholds. Breast Most cancers Res. 20, 152 (2018).
Cohen, J. D. et al. Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood check. Science 359, 926–930 (2018).
Wan, J. C. M. et al. Liquid biopsies come of age: in the direction of implementation of circulating tumour DNA. Nat. Rev. Most cancers 17, 223–238 (2017).
Finest, M. G. et al. RNA-Seq of tumor-educated platelets allows blood-based pan-cancer, multiclass, and molecular pathway most cancers diagnostics. Most cancers Cell 28, 666–676 (2015).
Eddy, D. M. et al. Mannequin transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good analysis practices activity drive — 7. Worth Well being 15, 843–850 (2012).
Dagenais, G. R. et al. Variations in frequent illnesses, hospital admissions, and deaths in middle-aged adults in 21 international locations from 5 continents (PURE): a potential cohort research. Lancet 395, 785–794 (2020).
Fulcher, J. et al. Efficacy and security of LDL-lowering remedy amongst women and men: meta-analysis of particular person information from 174 000 contributors in 27 randomised trials. Lancet 385, 1397–1405 (2015).
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Elements in Breast Most cancers. Sort and timing of menopausal hormone remedy and breast most cancers threat: particular person participant meta-analysis of the worldwide epidemiological proof. Lancet 394, 1159–1168 (2019).
Hamajima, N. et al. Alcohol, tobacco and breast most cancers — collaborative reanalysis of particular person information from 53 epidemiological research, together with 58,515 ladies with breast most cancers and 95,067 ladies with out the illness. Br. J. Most cancers 87, 1234–1245 (2002).
Bagnardi, V. et al. Alcohol consumption and site-specific most cancers threat: a complete dose–response meta-analysis. Br. J. Most cancers 112, 580–593 (2015).
Renehan, A. G., Tyson, M., Egger, M., Heller, R. F. & Zwahlen, M. Physique-mass index and incidence of most cancers: a scientific evaluation and meta-analysis of potential observational research. Lancet 371, 569–578 (2008).
Cuzick, J. Progress in preventive remedy for most cancers: a memory and private viewpoint. Br. J. Most cancers 118, 1155–1161 (2018).
Fisher, B. et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast most cancers: report of the Nationwide Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Challenge P-1 Research. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 90, 1371–1388 (1998).
Cuzick, J. Aromatase inhibitors for breast most cancers prevention. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 1636–1643 (2005).
Cuzick, J. et al. Anastrozole for prevention of breast most cancers in high-risk postmenopausal ladies (IBIS-II): a global, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 383, 1041–1048 (2014).
Goss, P. E. et al. Exemestane for breast-cancer prevention in postmenopausal ladies. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 2381–2391 (2011).
Cuzick, J. et al. First outcomes from the Worldwide Breast Most cancers Intervention Research (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial. Lancet 360, 817–824 (2002).
Cuzick, J. et al. Overview of the principle outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials. Lancet 361, 296–300 (2003).
Powles, T. et al. Interim evaluation of the incidence of breast most cancers within the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen randomised chemoprevention trial. Lancet 352, 98–101 (1998).
Veronesi, U. et al. Prevention of breast most cancers with tamoxifen: preliminary findings from the Italian randomised trial amongst hysterectomised ladies. Lancet 352, 93–97 (1998).
Powles, T. J., Ashley, S., Tidy, A., Smith, I. E. & Dowsett, M. Twenty-year follow-up of the Royal Marsden randomized, double-blinded tamoxifen breast most cancers prevention trial. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 99, 283–290 (2007).
Cuzick, J. et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast most cancers: prolonged long-term follow-up of the IBIS-I breast most cancers prevention trial. Lancet Oncol. 16, 67–75 (2015).
Vogel, V. G. et al. Results of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the chance of creating invasive breast most cancers and different illness outcomes: the NSABP research of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA 295, 2727–2741 (2006).
Vogel, V. G. et al. Replace of the Nationwide Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Challenge Research of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 Trial: stopping breast most cancers. Most cancers Prev. Res. 3, 696–706 (2010).
Nelson, H. D., Smith, M. E. B., Griffin, J. C. & Fu, R. Use of medicines to scale back threat for major breast most cancers: a scientific evaluation for the U.S. Preventive Companies Process Power. Ann. Intern. Med. 158, 604 (2013).
Owens, D. Ok. et al. Treatment use to scale back threat of breast most cancers: US Preventive Companies Process Power advice assertion. JAMA 322, 857–867 (2019).
Armstrong, N., Ryder, S., Forbes, C., Ross, J. & Quek, R. G. A scientific evaluation of the worldwide prevalence of BRCA mutation in breast most cancers. Clin. Epidemiol. 11, 543–561 (2019).
Heemskerk-Gerritsen, B. A. M. et al. Survival after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy in wholesome BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Most cancers Res. Deal with. 177, 723–733 (2019).
Jakub, J. W. et al. Oncologic security of prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in a inhabitants with BRCA mutations. JAMA Surg. 153, 123 (2018).
Mota, B. S. et al. Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the therapy of breast most cancers. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11, CD008932 (2016).
Headon, H. L., Kasem, A. & Mokbel, Ok. The oncological security of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a scientific evaluation of the literature with a pooled evaluation of 12,358 procedures. Arch. Plast. Surg. 43, 328–338 (2016).
Beral, V., Peto, R., Pirie, Ok. & Reeves, G. Menopausal hormone remedy and 20-year breast most cancers mortality. Lancet 394, 1139 (2019).
Widschwendter, M. et al. The intercourse hormone system in carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: a case-control research. Lancet Oncol. 14, 1226–1232 (2013).
Widschwendter, M. et al. Osteoprotegerin (OPG), the endogenous inhibitor of receptor activator of NF-kappaB ligand (RANKL), is dysregulated in BRCA mutation carriers. EBioMedicine 2, 1331–1339 (2015).
Schramek, D. et al. Osteoclast differentiation issue RANKL controls growth of progestin-driven mammary most cancers. Nature 468, 98–102 (2010).
Joshi, P. A. et al. Progesterone induces grownup mammary stem cell enlargement. Nature 465, 803–807 (2010).
Gonzalez-Suarez, E. et al. RANK ligand mediates progestin-induced mammary epithelial proliferation and carcinogenesis. Nature 468, 103–107 (2010).
Tanos, T. et al. Progesterone/RANKL is a significant regulatory axis within the human breast. Sci. Transl Med. 5, 182ra55 (2013).
Nolan, E. et al. RANK ligand as a possible goal for breast most cancers prevention in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Nat. Med. 22, 933–939 (2016).
Poole, A. J. et al. Prevention of Brca1-mediated mammary tumorigenesis in mice by a progesterone antagonist. Science 314, 1467–1470 (2006).
Kim, S. J. et al. Folic acid complement use and breast most cancers threat in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control research. Breast Most cancers Res. Deal with. 174, 741–748 (2019).
Evans, D. G., Howell, S. J. & Howell, A. Personalised prevention in excessive threat people: managing hormones and past. Breast 39, 139–147 (2018).
Gnant, M. et al. Adjuvant denosumab in postmenopausal sufferers with hormone receptor-positive breast most cancers (ABCSG-18): disease-free survival outcomes from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, part 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 20, 339–351 (2019).
European Medicines Company. European Union Scientific Trials Register https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2017-002505-35/AT (2018).
Sasieni, P. D., Duffy, S. W. & Cuzick, J. Ovarian most cancers screening: UKCTOCS trial. Lancet 387, 2602 (2016).
Curtis, H. J., Walker, A. J. & Goldacre, B. Impression of NICE steering on tamoxifen prescribing in England 2011–2017: an interrupted time sequence evaluation. Br. J. Most cancers 118, 1268–1275 (2018).
Cuzick, J. et al. Tamoxifen-induced discount in mammographic density and breast most cancers threat discount: a nested case-control research. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 103, 744–752 (2011).
Harvie, M. et al. Breast most cancers threat standing influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight reduction programme amongst breast most cancers screening attendees: two randomised managed feasibility trials. BMC Most cancers 19, 1089 (2019).
Teras, L. R. et al. Sustained weight reduction and threat of breast most cancers in ladies ≥50 years: a pooled evaluation of potential information. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz226 (2019).
Kyu, H. H. et al. Bodily exercise and threat of breast most cancers, colon most cancers, diabetes, ischemic coronary heart illness, and ischemic stroke occasions: systematic evaluation and dose-response meta-analysis for the International Burden of Illness Research 2013. BMJ 354, i3857 (2016).
Guo, W., Fensom, G. Ok., Reeves, G. Ok. & Key, T. J. Bodily exercise and breast most cancers threat: outcomes from the UK Biobank potential cohort. Br. J. Most cancers 122, 726–732 (2020)
Rainey, L. et al. The influence of alcohol consumption and bodily exercise on breast most cancers: the function of breast most cancers threat. Int. J. Most cancers https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32846 (2020).
French, D. P., Howell, A. & Evans, D. G. Psychosocial problems with a inhabitants strategy to excessive genetic threat identification: behavioural, emotional and knowledgeable alternative points. Breast 37, 148–153 (2018).
Albhert, T., Kiasuwa, R. & van den Bulcke, M. European information on high quality enchancment in complete most cancers management https://cancercontrol.eu/archived/uploads/pictures/Information/pdf/CanCon_Guide_FINAL_Web.pdf (2017)
Lesko, L. J., Zineh, I. & Huang, S.-M. What’s medical utility and why ought to we care? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 88, 729–733 (2010).
Rychetnik, L., Frommer, M., Hawe, P. & Shiell, A. Standards for evaluating proof on public well being interventions. J. Epidemiol. Neighborhood Well being 56, 119–127 (2002).
Esserman, L. J. et al. The WISDOM research: breaking the impasse within the breast most cancers screening debate. NPJ Breast Most cancers 3, 34 (2017).
US Nationwide Library of Drugs. Clinicaltrials.gov https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/present/NCT03672331 (2020)
Vachon, C. M. et al. The contributions of breast density and customary genetic variation to breast most cancers threat. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 107, dju397 (2015).
Shieh, Y. et al. Breast most cancers screening within the precision drugs period: risk-based screening in a population-based trial. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 109, djw290 (2017).
Etzioni, R. D. & Thompson, I. M. What do the screening trials actually inform us and the place can we go from right here? Urol. Clin. North. Am. 41, 223–228 (2014).
Getaneh, A. M., Heijnsdijk, E. A. & de Koning, H. J. The function of modelling within the coverage determination making course of for most cancers screening: instance of prostate particular antigen screening. Public. Well being Res. Pract. 29, 2921912 (2019).
Karlsson, A. et al. A pure historical past mannequin for planning prostate most cancers testing: calibration and validation utilizing Swedish registry information. PLoS One 14, e0211918 (2019).
Lew, J.-B. et al. Advantages, harms and cost-effectiveness of most cancers screening in Australia: an summary of modelling estimates. Public Well being Res. Pract. 29, 29121913 (2019).
Siebert, U. When ought to decision-analytic modeling be used within the financial analysis of well being care? Eur. J. Well being Econ. 4, 143–150 (2003).
Vilaprinyo, E. et al. Value-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening methods for breast most cancers. PLoS One 9, e86858 (2014).
Etzioni, R. et al. Limitations of basing screening insurance policies on screening trials. Med. Care 51, 295–300 (2013).
Etzioni, R. & Gulati, R. Recognizing the restrictions of most cancers overdiagnosis research: a primary step in the direction of overcoming them. J. Natl Most cancers Inst. 108, djv345 (2015).
Weinstein, M. C. et al. Ideas of excellent apply for determination analytic modeling in health-care analysis: report of the ISPOR activity drive on good analysis practices — modeling research. Worth Well being 6, 9–17 (2003).
Caro, J. J., Briggs, A. H., Siebert, U. & Kuntz, Ok. M. Modeling good analysis practices — overview. Med. Decis. Making 32, 667–677 (2012).
Briggs, A. H. et al. Mannequin parameter estimation and uncertainty evaluation. Med. Decis. Making 32, 722–732 (2012).
Hakama, M., Malila, N. & Dillner, J. Randomised well being companies research. Int. J. Most cancers 131, 2898–2902 (2012).
Ryan, M., Bate, A., Eastmond, C. J. & Ludbrook, A. Use of discrete alternative experiments to elicit preferences. Qual. Saf. Well being Care 10, i55–i60 (2001).
Mauskopf, J. A. et al. Ideas of excellent apply for funds influence evaluation: report of the ISPOR Process drive on good analysis practices — funds influence evaluation. Worth Well being 10, 336–347 (2007).
Krop, I. et al. Use of biomarkers to information selections on adjuvant systemic remedy for ladies with early-stage invasive breast most cancers: American Society of Scientific Oncology medical apply guideline targeted replace. J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 2838–2847 (2017).
Weiner, B. J. A principle of organizational readiness for change. Implement. Sci. 4, 67 (2009).
Holt, D. T., Helfrich, C. D., Corridor, C. G. & Weiner, B. J. Are you prepared? How well being professionals can comprehensively conceptualize readiness for change. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 25, 50–55 (2010).
Andermann, A. Revisting Wilson and Jungner within the genomic age: a evaluation of screening standards over the previous 40 years. Bull. World Well being Organ. 86, 317–319 (2008).
Rosenberg-Wohl, S. et al. Personal payer participation in protection with proof growth: a case research. Well being Affairs Weblog https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20170314.059181/full/ (2017).
Kotter, J. Main Change (Harvard Enterprise Press, 1996).
Knoster, T., Villa, R. & Thousand, J. in Restructuring for Caring and Efficient Schooling: Piecing the Puzzle collectively (eds Villa, R. & Hundreds, J.) 93–128 (Paul H. Brookes, 2000).
Lemke, A. A. & Harris-Wai, J. N. Stakeholder engagement in coverage growth: challenges and alternatives for human genomics. Genet. Med. 17, 949–957 (2015).
Puzhko, S. et al. Well being professionals’ views on breast most cancers threat stratification: understanding analysis of threat versus screening for illness. Public. Well being Rev. 40, 2 (2019).
Schmeer, Ok. Stakeholder evaluation tips https://www.who.int/workforcealliance/data/toolkit/33.pdf (2019).
Wegwarth, O. et al. What do European ladies find out about their feminine most cancers dangers and most cancers screening? A cross-sectional on-line intervention survey in 5 European international locations. BMJ Open 8, e023789 (2018).
Waller, J., Osborne, Ok. & Wardle, J. Enthusiasm for most cancers screening in Nice Britain: a common inhabitants survey. Br. J. Most cancers 112, 562–566 (2015).
Wegwarth, O. & Gigerenzer, G. Enhancing evidence-based practices via well being literacy — reply. JAMA Intern. Med. 174, 1413 (2014).
McDowell, M., Rebitschek, F. G., Gigerenzer, G. & Wegwarth, O. A easy device for speaking the advantages and harms of well being interventions: a information for making a truth field. MDM Coverage Pract. 1, 1–10 (2016).
McDowell, M., Gigerenzer, G., Wegwarth, O. & Rebitschek, F. G. Impact of tabular and icon truth field codecs on comprehension of advantages and harms of prostate most cancers screening: a randomized trial. Med. Decis. Making 39, 41–56 (2018).
Steckelberg, A., Berger, B., Kopke, S., Heesen, C. & Muhlhauser, I. Standards for evidence-based affected person data. Z. Arztl. Fortbild. Qualitatssich. 99, 343–351 (2005).
French, D. P., Cameron, E., Benton, J. S., Deaton, C. & Harvie, M. Can Speaking personalised illness threat promote wholesome behaviour change? A scientific evaluation of systematic evaluations. Ann. Behav. Med. 51, 718–729 (2017).
Hollands, G. J. et al. The influence of speaking genetic dangers of illness on risk-reducing well being behaviour: systematic evaluation with meta-analysis. BMJ 352, i1102 (2016).
French, D. P. et al. Psychological influence of offering ladies with personalised 10-year breast most cancers threat estimates. Br. J. Most cancers 118, 1648–1657 (2018).
Sekhon, M., Cartwright, M. & Francis, J. J. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an summary of evaluations and growth of a theoretical framework. BMC Well being Serv. Res. 17, 88 (2017).
Evans, D. G. et al. Enchancment in threat prediction, early detection and prevention of breast most cancers within the NHS breast screening programme and household historical past clinics: a twin cohort research. Program. Grants Appl. Res. https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar04110 (2016).
Rainey, L. et al. Girls’s perceptions of customized risk-based breast most cancers screening and prevention: a global focus group research. Psychooncology. 28, 1056–1062 (2019).
Meisel, S. F. et al. Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the premise of genetic threat: attitudes amongst ladies within the UK. Breast 24, 237–241 (2015).
Ghanouni, A. et al. Attitudes in the direction of risk-stratified breast most cancers screening amongst ladies in England: a cross-sectional survey. J. Med. Display. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141319883662 (2019).
Keogh, L. A. et al. Client and clinician views on personalising breast most cancers prevention data. Breast 43, 39–47 (2019).
Lévesque, E., Hagan, J., Knoppers, B. M. & Simard, J. Organizational challenges to fairness within the supply of companies inside a brand new customized risk-based strategy to breast most cancers screening. N. Genet. Soc. 38, 38–59 (2019).
Chowdhury, S. et al. Do well being professionals want extra competencies for stratified most cancers prevention based mostly on genetic threat profiling? J. Pers. Med. 5, 191–212 (2015).
Feero, W. G. & Inexperienced, E. D. Genomics schooling for well being care professionals within the twenty first century. JAMA 306, 989–990 (2011).
Kurian, A. W. et al. Gaps in incorporating germline genetic testing into therapy decision-making for early-stage breast most cancers. J. Clin. Oncol. 35, 2232–2239 (2017).
Wegwarth, O., Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Gaissmaier, W. & Gigerenzer, G. Do physicians perceive most cancers screening statistics? A nationwide survey of major care physicians in the US. Ann. Intern. Med. 156, 340–349 (2012).
Slade, I. & Burton, H. Getting ready clinicians for genomic drugs. Postgrad. Med. J. 92, 369–371 (2016).
Lévesque, E. et al. Moral, authorized, and regulatory points for the implementation of omics-based threat prediction of girls’s most cancers: factors to contemplate. Public Well being Genomics 21, 37–44 (2018).
Corridor, A. E. et al. Implementing risk-stratified screening for frequent cancers: a evaluation of potential moral, authorized and social points. J. Public Well being 36, 285–291 (2014).
Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J. Ideas of Biomedical Ethics. (Oxford College Press, 2013)
Maheswaran, R., Pearson, T., Jordan, H. & Black, D. Socioeconomic deprivation, journey distance, location of service, and uptake of breast most cancers screening in north Derbyshire, UK. J. Epidemiol. Neighborhood Well being 60, 208–212 (2006).
Morris, M. et al. Ethnicity, deprivation and screening: survival from breast most cancers amongst screening-eligible ladies within the West Midlands recognized from 1989 to 2011. Br. J. Most cancers 113, 548–555 (2015).
Moutel, G. et al. Girls’s participation in breast most cancers screening in France — an moral strategy. BMC Med. Ethics 15, 64 (2014).
Marmot, M. Truthful society, wholesome lives: the marmot evaluation; strategic evaluation of well being inequalities in England post-2010 http://www.instituteofhealthequity.org/resources-reports/fair-society-healthy-lives-the-marmot-review/fair-society-healthy-lives-full-report-pdf.pdf (2010).
Darquy, S., Moutel, G., Jullian, O., Barré, S. & Duchange, N. In direction of fairness in organised most cancers screening: the case of cervical most cancers screening in France. BMC Womens Well being 18, 192 (2018).
Hersch, J. et al. Use of a choice assist together with data on overdetection to help knowledgeable alternative about breast most cancers screening: a randomised managed trial. Lancet 385, 1642–1652 (2015).
Prince, A. E. R. Comparative views: regulating insurer use of genetic data. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 340–348 (2019).
Joly, Y., Feze, I. N., Tune, L. & Knoppers, B. M. Comparative approaches to genetic discrimination: chasing shadows? Developments Genet. 33, 299–302 (2017).
HM Authorities and Affiliation of British Insurers. Code on Genetic Testing and Insurance coverage. (HM Authorities and Affiliation of British Insurers, 2018).
Lu, C. Y. et al. A proposed strategy to speed up proof era for genomic-based applied sciences within the context of a studying well being system. Genet. Med. 20, 390–396 (2018).
Landes, S. J., McBain, S. A. & Curran, G. M. An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Psychiatry Res. 280, 112513 (2019).
D’Aunno, T., Hearld, L. & Alexander, J. A. Sustaining multistakeholder alliances. Well being Care Handle Rev. 44, 183–194 (2019).
