COVID-19 and cancer: do we really know what we think we know?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Robinson AG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7232918 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Few women with ovarian cancer undergo genetic testing for the Breast and Ovarian Cancer susceptibility genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. With the prospect of BRCA-directed therapeutics, we investigated ovarian cancer patients' knowledge and willingness to undergo genetic testing.All ovarian cancer patients seen in the Gynecology Center of a cancer center and a private clinic were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire regarding knowledge and willingness to undergo BRCA testing. Women who had prior genetic testing were asked not to participate. Data was analyzed using Fisher's exact test.Two-hundred and thirty seven ovarian cancer patients voluntarily completed the questionnaire. Fifty-five percent (131/237) of participants had not heard of BRCA testing. Of Caucasian respondents, 51% were unaware of BRCA testing, compared to 70% of Hispanic and 88% of African American respondents (p=0.008). Awareness was correlated with education (p<0.001). Eighty-nine percent of participants were willing to be tested if it would directly affect their therapy and 86.9% would be tested to benefit their family. Seventy-four percent of patients would pay 20% of the cost of testing, only 25.1% would pay in full.A majority of women with ovarian cancer are not aware of the availability of BRCA testing. This lack of awareness is more profound in minorities. Despite lack of knowledge, most patients would undergo testing if it would impact their care. However, cost may be a barrier. Given the willingness of patients to undergo testing and the possibility of targeted therapy, clinicians who care for these patients should work to make appropriate genetic counseling referrals.
| S-EPMC3746752 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFamily history is often referred to as a family tree in casual everyday conservations, but it carries a different connotation in medicine. This study is the first to investigate people's understanding of 'family medical history' and the concept of 'family' in the context of inherited cancer.MethodsThree hundred and nine staff at the Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds completed an online web survey.ResultsNot all respondents understood or knew what makes a family history of cancer. Only 54% knew exactly the type of information required to make a family history. Apart from blood relatives, adopted and step-siblings, step parents, in-laws, spouses, friends and colleagues were also named as 'family' for family history taking. Personal experience of living with cancer and academic qualification were not significant in influencing knowledge of family history.ConclusionsThere is misunderstanding and poor knowledge of family history of cancer and the type of information required to make a family history even in a sample of people teaching and researching medicine and health issues. Public understanding of the value of family medical history in cancer prevention and management is important if informed clinical decisions and appropriate health care are to be delivered.
| S-EPMC5060931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:How cells reliably infer information about their environment is a fundamentally important question. While sensing and signaling generally start with cell-surface receptors, the degree of accuracy with which a cell can measure external ligand concentration with even the simplest device-a single receptor-is surprisingly hard to pin down. Recent studies provide conflicting results for the fundamental physical limits. Comparison is made difficult as different studies either suggest different readout mechanisms of the ligand-receptor occupancy, or differ on how ligand diffusion is implemented. Here we critically analyse these studies and present a unifying perspective on the limits of sensing, with wide-ranging biological implications.
| S-EPMC4761375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Roads and traffic impacts on wildlife populations are well documented. Three major mechanisms can cause them: reduced connectivity, increased mortality and reduced habitat quality. Researchers commonly recommend mitigation based on the mechanism they deem responsible. We reviewed the 2012-2016 literature to evaluate authors' inferences, to determine whether they explicitly acknowledge all possible mechanisms that are consistent with their results. We found 327 negative responses of wildlife to roads, from 307 studies. While most (84%) of these responses were consistent with multiple mechanisms, 60% of authors invoked a single mechanism. This indicates that many authors are over-confident in their inferences, and that the literature does not allow estimation of the relative importance of the mechanisms. We found preferences in authors' discussion of mechanisms. When all three mechanisms were consistent with the response measured, authors were 2.4 and 2.9 times as likely to infer reduced habitat quality compared to reduced connectivity or increased mortality, respectively. When both reduced connectivity and increased mortality were consistent with the response measured, authors were 5.2 times as likely to infer reduced connectivity compared to increased mortality. Given these results, road ecologists and managers are likely over-recommending mitigation for improving habitat quality and connectivity, and under-recommending measures to reduce road-kill.
| S-EPMC7423051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of reviewSevere acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019, rapidly reaching global pandemic proportions. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented unique challenges to the rheumatology community. It is known that many individuals with rheumatic disease are at increased risk of severe disease from other infections, sparking a similar fear for COVID-19. In addition, medications routinely used in rheumatology practice are being trialled as treatments, with the potential for drug shortages for rheumatology patients.Recent findingsUnderlying comorbidities and active disease are associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with rheumatic disease. Tocilizumab and hydroxychloroquine have not proven to be effective treatments in the management of COVID-19. Telehealth has become an essential tool for the rheumatology community to monitor patients during the pandemic. In this article, we summarise the available COVID-19 evidence that is of relevance to the rheumatology community. We discuss the risk of contracting COVID-19 in individuals with rheumatic disease, along with presenting features and clinical outcomes. We provide an overview of the treatments for COVID-19 which have significance for rheumatology. We highlight published recommendations which can guide our management of rheumatic disease populations during this pandemic. Finally, we discuss the challenges in delivering effective care virtually and present methods and tools which could be adapted for use.
| S-EPMC7785126 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:Research on ADHD in college students began in the 1990s and has been steadily increasing in recent years. Because young adults with ADHD who attend college have experienced greater academic success during high school than many peers with the disorder, which is likely to be associated with better overall functioning, the degree to which they experience similar patterns of adjustment difficulties was not initially known. Accumulating research suggests that college students with ADHD experience less academic success and greater psychological and emotional difficulties than other students and use alcohol and drugs at higher rates. However, conclusions to be drawn from this research are limited by the use of small samples that may not be representative of the wider population of students with ADHD, and a lack of diagnostic rigor in identifying students with ADHD to be included in such research. Studies of the effectiveness of psychosocial treatments, medication treatment, and academic accommodations are extremely limited or nonexistent. Issues particularly germane to college students include feigning ADHD and the misuse and diversion of stimulant medication. Given that at least 25 % of college students with disabilities are diagnosed with ADHD, methodologically sound investigations are clearly needed in order to better understand the impact of ADHD on college students' adjustment and to develop and implement interventions that can enhance students' success.
| S-EPMC3441934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on infectious diseases and their associations with host factors and underlying conditions. New data on the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus are entering the public domain at a rapid rate such that their distillation often lags behind. To minimise weak associations becoming perceived as established paradigms, it is imperative that methodologies and outputs from different studies are appropriately critiqued and compared. In this review, we examine recent data on a potential relationship between smoking and COVID-19. While the causal role of smoking has been firmly demonstrated in regard to lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, such associations have the benefit of decades' worth of multi-centre epidemiological and mechanistic data. From our analysis of the available studies to date, it appears that a relationship is emerging in regard to patients with a smoking history having a higher likelihood of developing more severe symptoms of COVID-19 disease than non-smokers. Data on whether COVID-19 has a greater incidence in smokers than non-smokers is thus far, contradictory and inconclusive. There is therefore a need for some caution to be exercised until further research has been conducted in a wider range of geographical settings with sufficient numbers of patients that have been carefully phenotyped in respect of smoking status and adequate statistical control for confounding factors.
| S-EPMC7674982 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7156804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Obesity has reached global epidemic proportions and its effects on interactions between the immune system and malignancies, particularly as related to cancer immunotherapy outcomes, have come under increasing scrutiny. Although the vast majority of pre-clinical murine studies suggest that host obesity should have detrimental effects on anti-tumor immunity and cancer immunotherapy outcomes, the opposite has been found in multiple retrospective human studies. As a result, acceptance of the "obesity paradox" paradigm, wherein obesity increases cancer risk but then improves patient outcomes, has become widespread. However, results to the contrary do exist and the biological mechanisms that promote beneficial obesity-associated outcomes remain unclear. Here, we highlight discrepancies in the literature regarding the obesity paradox for cancer immunotherapy outcomes, with a particular focus on renal cancer. We also discuss multiple factors that may impact research findings and warrant renewed research attention in future studies. We propose that specific cancer patient populations may be affected in fundamentally different ways by host obesity, leading to divergent effects on anti-tumor immunity and/or immunotherapy outcomes. Continued, thoughtful analysis of this critical issue is therefore needed to permit a more nuanced understanding of the complex effects of host obesity on cancer immunotherapy outcomes in patients with renal cancer or other malignancies.
| S-EPMC8374888 | biostudies-literature