18 resultados para Ciceron, Marco Tulio, 106-43 a.C
Resumo:
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is low and difficult to calculate. Accurate tools to determine risk are needed to optimize surveillance and intervention. We assessed the ability of candidate biomarkers to predict which cases of BE will progress to EAC or high-grade dysplasia and identified those that can be measured in formalin-fixed tissues. METHODS: We analyzed data from a nested case-control study performed using the population-based Northern Ireland BE Register (1993-2005). Cases who progressed to EAC (n = 89) or high-grade dysplasia =6 months after diagnosis with BE were matched to controls (nonprogressors, n = 291), for age, sex, and year of BE diagnosis. Established biomarkers (abnormal DNA content, p53, and cyclin A expression) and new biomarkers (levels of sialyl Lewis(a), Lewis(x), and Aspergillus oryzae lectin [AOL] and binding of wheat germ agglutinin) were assessed in paraffin-embedded tissue samples from patients with a first diagnosis of BE. Conditional logistic regression analysis was applied to assess odds of progression for patients with dysplastic and nondysplastic BE, based on biomarker status. RESULTS: Low-grade dysplasia and all biomarkers tested, other than Lewis(x), were associated with risk of EAC or high-grade dysplasia. In backward selection, a panel comprising low-grade dysplasia, abnormal DNA ploidy, and AOL most accurately identified progressors and nonprogressors. The adjusted odds ratio for progression of patients with BE with low-grade dysplasia was 3.74 (95% confidence interval, 2.43-5.79) for each additional biomarker and the risk increased by 2.99 for each additional factor (95% confidence interval, 1.72-5.20) in patients without dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Low-grade dysplasia, abnormal DNA ploidy, and AOL can be used to identify patients with BE most likely to develop EAC or high-grade dysplasia.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if there is a reduced risk of type 1 diabetes in children breastfed or exclusively breastfed by performing a pooled analysis with adjustment for recognized confounders.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Relevant studies were identified from literature searches using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Authors of relevant studies were asked to provide individual participant data or conduct prespecified analyses. Meta-analysis techniques were used to combine odds ratios (ORs) and investigate heterogeneity between studies.
RESULTS: Data were available from 43 studies including 9,874 patients with type 1 diabetes. Overall, there was a reduction in the risk of diabetes after exclusive breast-feeding for >2 weeks (20 studies; OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88), the association after exclusive breast-feeding for >3 months was weaker (30 studies; OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.00), and no association was observed after (nonexclusive) breast-feeding for >2 weeks (28 studies; OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.07) or >3 months (29 studies; OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-1.00). These associations were all subject to marked heterogeneity (I(2) = 58, 76, 54, and 68%, respectively). In studies with lower risk of bias, the reduced risk after exclusive breast-feeding for >2 weeks remained (12 studies; OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99), and heterogeneity was reduced (I(2) = 0%). Adjustments for potential confounders altered these estimates very little.
CONCLUSIONS: The pooled analysis suggests weak protective associations between exclusive breast-feeding and type 1 diabetes risk. However, these findings are difficult to interpret because of the marked variation in effect and possible biases (particularly recall bias) inherent in the included studies.