Former NFL great Junior Seau was found dead in his home in Oceanside, Calif., today. Police say the likely cause of death was suicide. He was 43 years old.
Law enforcement sources reportedly believe Seau, a USC and pro football standout for 20 seasons, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest.
Few other details were immediately available. TV footage showed police swarming his home in North San Diego County and people comforting each other.
He leaves behind four kids and an ex-wife. He reportedly sent text messages to his ex-wife and children yesterday saying simply, "Love you."
They all responded and didn't suspect anything was wrong, according to TMZ reports, and Seau is said to have last seen his kids three weeks ago.
Sources close to Seau say his family didn't notice any signs of depression in recent weeks, but more details will surely follow in the coming days.
Seau was involved in a car accident a few years ago when he drove off a cliff in Carlsbad, Calif., hours after he was arrested for attacking his girlfriend.
Seau later said he was not trying to kill himself ... insisting he had fallen asleep at the wheel. That was 2010, his final season as a professional.
The San Diego Chargers, who employed Junior for most of his career, said in a statement, "Everyone at the Chargers is in complete shock and disbelief right now. We ask everyone to stop what they're doing and send their prayers to Junior and his family."
Seau's explosive play at linebacker with the Chargers, Dolphins and Patriots will likely send him to the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility.
CSNNE.com STAFF REPORT FOLLOW ON TWITTER @CSNNEWENGLAND It's been a month, and the early returns on Bobby Valentine -- at least to Michael Felger and Lou Merloni -- aren't encouraging.
"[To say] he has been a train wreck, I think, is not being unfair in this first month," Felger said on 'Sports Sunday'. Merloni, the ex-Sox infielder, agreed, saying Valentine's first month "has been a mess".
"I've talked to a lot of baseball people, I mean guys that either scout or [have] been around this game a long time," said Merloni. "You got a lot of people shaking their heads at some of these moves that he has made . . . "
One move in particular that they both mentioned: Not knowing that Twins starter Liam Hendricks was right-handed last week, which forced Valentine to change his lineup about an hour before the game.
"[The] Red Sox faced that pitcher . . . twice in spring training, including a five-inning start," said Felger, later adding: "And then a month later, Bobby's filling out the lineup card to face this pitcher and doesn't know whether he's left-handed or right-handed. That is . . . wow!"
"Somewhere," Merloni joked later, "Carmine (the computer) . . . is just blowing up because all of these matchups and all of these numbers are based on who you're going up against that night . . .
"And if you don't even know if it's a lefty or a righty, then what's the starting point? It's actually been kind of scary."
Concluded Felger: "It feels like the game has passed him by, or he's lost his fastball. [It] just feels like he's every bit of 62 years old."
Longer sleep times may counteract genetic factors related to weight gain Public release date: 1-May-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Doug Dusik ddusik@aasmnet.org 630-737-9700 American Academy of Sleep Medicine
Short sleep duration increases expression of genetic risks for high body mass index
DARIEN, IL Toss out another old wives' tale: Sleeping too much does not make you fat. Quite the opposite, according to a new study examining sleep and body mass index (BMI) in twins, which found that sleeping more than nine hours a night may actually suppress genetic influences on body weight.
The study looked at 1,088 pairs of twins and found that sleeping less than seven hours a night was associated with both increased BMI and greater genetic influences on BMI. Previous research has shown that genetic influences include things like glucose metabolism, energy use, fatty acid storage and satiety. In this study, the heritability of BMI was twice as high for the short sleepers than for twins who slept longer than nine hours a night.
"The results suggest that shorter sleep provides a more permissive environment for the expression of obesity related genes," said principal investigator Nathaniel Watson, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington. "Or it may be that extended sleep is protective by suppressing expression of obesity genes."
Watson and colleagues determined that for twins sleeping less than seven hours, genetic influences accounted for 70 percent of the differences in BMI, with common environment accounting for just 4 percent and unique environment 26 percent. For twins averaging more than nine hours of sleep, genetic factors were attributed to 32 percent of weight variations, with common environment accounting for 51 percent and unique environment 17 percent.
More research is needed, Watson said, but these preliminary results may suggest that behavioral weight loss measures would be most effective when genetic drivers of body weight are mitigated through sleep extension.
###
For a copy of the study, "Sleep Duration and Body Mass Index in Twins: A Gene-Environment Interaction," or to arrange an interview with an AASM spokesperson, please contact PR Coordinator Doug Dusik at 630-737-9700, ext. 9364, or ddusik@aasmnet.org.
The monthly, peer-reviewed, scientific journal SLEEP is published online by the Associated Professional Sleep Societies LLC, a joint venture of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The AASM is a professional membership society that is the leader in setting standards and promoting excellence in sleep medicine health care, education and research (www.aasmnet.org).
Read more about sleep disorders from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine on the Your Sleep website, http://yoursleep.aasmnet.org/Disorders.aspx. Help for people who have a sleep problem is available at more than 2,400 AASM-accredited sleep disorders centers around the United States.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Longer sleep times may counteract genetic factors related to weight gain Public release date: 1-May-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Doug Dusik ddusik@aasmnet.org 630-737-9700 American Academy of Sleep Medicine
Short sleep duration increases expression of genetic risks for high body mass index
DARIEN, IL Toss out another old wives' tale: Sleeping too much does not make you fat. Quite the opposite, according to a new study examining sleep and body mass index (BMI) in twins, which found that sleeping more than nine hours a night may actually suppress genetic influences on body weight.
The study looked at 1,088 pairs of twins and found that sleeping less than seven hours a night was associated with both increased BMI and greater genetic influences on BMI. Previous research has shown that genetic influences include things like glucose metabolism, energy use, fatty acid storage and satiety. In this study, the heritability of BMI was twice as high for the short sleepers than for twins who slept longer than nine hours a night.
"The results suggest that shorter sleep provides a more permissive environment for the expression of obesity related genes," said principal investigator Nathaniel Watson, MD, MSc, of the University of Washington. "Or it may be that extended sleep is protective by suppressing expression of obesity genes."
Watson and colleagues determined that for twins sleeping less than seven hours, genetic influences accounted for 70 percent of the differences in BMI, with common environment accounting for just 4 percent and unique environment 26 percent. For twins averaging more than nine hours of sleep, genetic factors were attributed to 32 percent of weight variations, with common environment accounting for 51 percent and unique environment 17 percent.
More research is needed, Watson said, but these preliminary results may suggest that behavioral weight loss measures would be most effective when genetic drivers of body weight are mitigated through sleep extension.
###
For a copy of the study, "Sleep Duration and Body Mass Index in Twins: A Gene-Environment Interaction," or to arrange an interview with an AASM spokesperson, please contact PR Coordinator Doug Dusik at 630-737-9700, ext. 9364, or ddusik@aasmnet.org.
The monthly, peer-reviewed, scientific journal SLEEP is published online by the Associated Professional Sleep Societies LLC, a joint venture of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society. The AASM is a professional membership society that is the leader in setting standards and promoting excellence in sleep medicine health care, education and research (www.aasmnet.org).
Read more about sleep disorders from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine on the Your Sleep website, http://yoursleep.aasmnet.org/Disorders.aspx. Help for people who have a sleep problem is available at more than 2,400 AASM-accredited sleep disorders centers around the United States.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
The dramatic and heartbreaking 911 call placed by Jennifer Hudson's sister upon finding the body of her mother has been released.
And it's exactly as gut-wrenchingly devastating and emotional as you would imagine.
More from E: Jennifer Hudson's sister testifies in family murder trial
The call was released this morning on the ruling of Judge Charles Burns, and against the plea by the prosecution not to do so.
"Help, please," Jennifer's sister Julia Hudson is heard telling the 911 operator. "Oh, God. Somebody's killed my mother, somebody's killed my mother...Please help me. Oh my God, oh my God."
When asked by the dispatcher if she needed an ambulance, a near-hysterical Hudson replied, "I don't know. I'm scared...please...please...can you please send an ambulance, please. Oh my God.
More from E: Jennifer Hudson, sister draw strength ahead of murder trial
"She's on the floor and I see blood coming from her head...I just came home from work and there's a bullet hole in our front door...she's 57 years old. Please help my mama. Please just send an ambulance," Julia says.
Toward the end of the three-minute call, while still on hold with the dispatcher, Julia can be heard speaking again, ostensibly to a neighbor.
"Where's my brother? What happened? She's on the floor...I'm here by myself."
More from E: Jennifer Hudson breaks down on stand
The call then cuts off. (Listen to the call on E! Online.)
The prosecution was opposed to the call being released, arguing on Friday that it had not yet been fully placed into evidence.
"To ensure the state's right to a fair trial and the defendant's right to a fair trial, we object at this time to releasing the 911 call," state attorney Jennifer Bagby argued Friday.
Risk factors may inform breast cancer screeningPublic release date: 30-Apr-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Rebecca Hughes hughes.r@ghc.org 206-287-2055 Group Health Research Institute
Mammograms might benefit women in their 40s with family history or dense breasts
Choosing when to start regular breast cancer screening is a complicated decision for individual women and their providers. For most women, increasing age is the biggest risk factor for breast cancer, which is much more common at age 60 than at 40. But two new articles on other risk factors may inform guidelines and clinical practice about screening mammography from age 40 to 49.
The articles in the May 1 Annals of Internal Medicine provide information on how certain risk factors affect breast cancer risk and shift the balance between harms and benefits. Screening harms include false-positive results that can lead to invasive follow-up procedures and overdiagnosis, which prompts unnecessary treatment. Screening has a less favorable balance between benefits and harms in average-risk women in their 40s than in women aged 50 to 74.
This research addresses the need for more information about screening women in their 40sa need that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force highlighted in its 2009 updated breast cancer screening guidelines. Also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, these guidelines advise screening mammography every two years for women aged 50 to 74. The guidelines recommend that women in their 40s consider their personal values regarding the benefits and harms and then decide when to begin regular screening.
Group Health Research Institute Senior Investigators Diana Miglioretti, PhD, and Diana Buist, PhD, contributed to both of the new Annals articles. Together, the companion articles estimate that the benefits and harms of getting screening mammograms every two years are the same for groups of women aged 40-49 who have a twofold increased risk level of breast cancer as for groups of women aged 50? with an average breast cancer risk level. Factors that increase 40- to 49-year-old women's risk by twofold are having a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, or child) with breast cancer, or having extremely dense breast tissue (as seen on a mammogram).
"Mainly, we wanted to find out the tipping point: what level of increased risk women in their 40s needed to have to reach the same benefit-to-harm ratio for screening mammography as women aged 50 to 74," said Dr. Miglioretti. The international research team used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), a U.S. research network of mammography registries. The BCSC is the nation's largest longitudinal collection of breast imaging data, covering 9.5 million mammograms, 2.3 million women, and 114,000 breast cancer cases so far. By continuously collecting information on breast cancer screening, risk factors, and cancer outcomes, the BCSC provides long-term data on screening as it occurs in everyday clinical practice to help answer preventive health care questions.
Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years
In one article, Nicolien van Ravesteyn, MSc, Jeanne Mandelblatt, MD, MPH, and colleagues including Drs. Miglioretti and Buist identified the threshold of risk needed for women ages 40? to have comparable benefits and harms as seen when average-risk women aged 50? are screened every other year using mammography. They used four independent well-established simulation models that are part of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) collaborative. Ms. van Ravesteyn is a researcher at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands; and Dr. Mandelblatt is the associate director for population sciences at Georgetown University Medical Center's Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC.
To estimate the benefits and harms of mammography screening for women in their 40s, the CISNET models used BCSC and other information on large populations of U.S. women. The results indicated that the benefits and harms from screening mammograms every two years for women 40-49 with a twofold increase in breast cancer risk are similar to those for average-risk women who start biennial screening at age 50. For annual screening, a fourfold increased risk level is where the benefits outweigh the harms for starting screening at age 40. There were only small differences in benefits using digital compared to plain-film mammography, but digital screening generates many more false-positive results than does plain film.
"Our population models show what can be expected across populations with different risk levels," Dr. Mandelblatt said. "The models cannot determine outcomes for individual women. Policymakers can use them to inform guidelines for populations."
Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years
The first author of the other article is Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, an investigator at the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University and Providence Cancer Center in Portland. With Drs. Buist and Miglioretti and colleagues including Ellen O'Meara, PhD, a research associate at Group Health Research Institute, Dr. Nelson conducted a meta-analysisa rigorous review of previous studiesfrom 66 publications selected for their relevance and quality. They also conducted new analyses using BCSC data on more than 380,000 women who were 40-49 when they had a screening mammogram from 1994 to 2010, to see how family history and other risk factors affected breast cancer risk for women in their 40s.
Results indicated:
having a first-degree relative with breast cancer, especially one under age 50, increased risk by more than twofold
having extremely dense breasts on a mammogram increased risk by more than twofold
having a previous benign breast biopsy, a second-degree relative with breast cancer, or breast tissue that was heterogeneously dense on a mammogram increased risk between 1.5-fold and twofold.
"Most of the risk factors that we considered did not increase breast cancer risk," Dr. Nelson said. Other potential risk factors that they evaluatedsuch as race/ethnicity, body mass index, physical activity, and using alcohol, tobacco, or hormone therapyhad effects that were either small, undetectable, or equivocal. "Our results indicate that we can focus on just a few significant risk factors to simplify approaches to risk-based screening for women in their 40s," she added.
The research in the two articles was possible because three national research groupsBCSC, CISNET, and the Evidence-based Practice Centerjoined forces. Each contributed unique strengths: extensive data, comprehensive breast cancer models, and data interpretation. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force previously used information from the three groups to develop its current breast cancer screening recommendations.
In an accompanying editorial, Otis Webb Brawley, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of the American Cancer Society and author of the book How We Harm, referred to the BCSC and CISNET as "national treasures."
The authors called for additional research based on the findings, to see how well these risk estimates, which are based on large numbers of women, predict risks for individual women. In the meantime, said Dr. Buist, "taken together, the results from these articles provide strong evidence that professional groups can use to refine screening guidelines."
###
Funding was from the National Cancer Institute. The collaboration between BCSC, CISNET, and the Evidence-based Practice Center was supported in part by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and by the National Cancer Institute, which recently awarded a $20 million National Cancer Institute Program Project grant, co-led by Dr. Miglioretti, to the BCSC.
Ms. van Ravesteyn and Drs. Mandelblatt, Nelson, Buist, Miglioretti, and O'Meara's collaborators were Bernadette Zakher, MBBS, Amy Cantor, MD, MPH, Rongwei Fu, PhD, and Jessica Griffin, MS, of the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland; Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk, PhD, and Harry J. de Koning, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Karla Kerlikowske, MD, MS, of the University of California San Francisco; Amy Trentham-Dietz, PhD, and Oguzhan Alagoz, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Natasha K. Stout, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston; Sandra J. Lee, DSc, and Hui Huang, MS, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston; Clyde B. Schechter, MD, MA, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York; and Aimee M. Near, MPH, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington DC.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) is the nation's largest and most comprehensive collection of breast cancer screening information. It's a research resource for studies designed to assess the delivery and quality of breast cancer screening and related patient outcomes in the United States. The BCSC is a National Cancer Institute-funded collaborative network of seven mammography registries with linkages to tumor and/or pathology registries. The network is supported by a central Statistical Coordinating Center. Currently, the Consortium's database contains information on over 9.5 million mammographic examinations, 2.3 million women, and 114,000 breast cancer cases (95,000 invasive cancers and 19,000 ductal carcinoma in situ). More information: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov.
Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network
The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) is a consortium of NCI-sponsored investigators that use statistical modeling to improve our understanding of cancer control interventions in prevention, screening, and treatment and their effects on population trends in incidence and mortality. These models can be used to guide public health research and priorities. More information: http://cisnet.cancer.gov.
Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center
The Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (Oregon EPC) conducts systematic reviews of health care topics for federal and state agencies and private foundations. These reviews report the evidence from clinical research studies and the quality of that evidence for use by policymakers in decisions on guidelines and coverage. The Center is one of 14 EPCs sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). More information: http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/evidence-based-practice-center.
Group Health Research Institute
Founded in 1947, Group Health Cooperative is a Seattle-based, consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system. Group Health Research Institute changed its name from Group Health Center for Health Studies in 2009. Since 1983, the Institute has conducted nonproprietary public-interest research on preventing, diagnosing, and treating major health problems. Government and private research grants provide its main funding. More information: http://grouphealthresearch.org.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Risk factors may inform breast cancer screeningPublic release date: 30-Apr-2012 [ | E-mail | Share ]
Contact: Rebecca Hughes hughes.r@ghc.org 206-287-2055 Group Health Research Institute
Mammograms might benefit women in their 40s with family history or dense breasts
Choosing when to start regular breast cancer screening is a complicated decision for individual women and their providers. For most women, increasing age is the biggest risk factor for breast cancer, which is much more common at age 60 than at 40. But two new articles on other risk factors may inform guidelines and clinical practice about screening mammography from age 40 to 49.
The articles in the May 1 Annals of Internal Medicine provide information on how certain risk factors affect breast cancer risk and shift the balance between harms and benefits. Screening harms include false-positive results that can lead to invasive follow-up procedures and overdiagnosis, which prompts unnecessary treatment. Screening has a less favorable balance between benefits and harms in average-risk women in their 40s than in women aged 50 to 74.
This research addresses the need for more information about screening women in their 40sa need that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force highlighted in its 2009 updated breast cancer screening guidelines. Also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, these guidelines advise screening mammography every two years for women aged 50 to 74. The guidelines recommend that women in their 40s consider their personal values regarding the benefits and harms and then decide when to begin regular screening.
Group Health Research Institute Senior Investigators Diana Miglioretti, PhD, and Diana Buist, PhD, contributed to both of the new Annals articles. Together, the companion articles estimate that the benefits and harms of getting screening mammograms every two years are the same for groups of women aged 40-49 who have a twofold increased risk level of breast cancer as for groups of women aged 50? with an average breast cancer risk level. Factors that increase 40- to 49-year-old women's risk by twofold are having a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, or child) with breast cancer, or having extremely dense breast tissue (as seen on a mammogram).
"Mainly, we wanted to find out the tipping point: what level of increased risk women in their 40s needed to have to reach the same benefit-to-harm ratio for screening mammography as women aged 50 to 74," said Dr. Miglioretti. The international research team used data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), a U.S. research network of mammography registries. The BCSC is the nation's largest longitudinal collection of breast imaging data, covering 9.5 million mammograms, 2.3 million women, and 114,000 breast cancer cases so far. By continuously collecting information on breast cancer screening, risk factors, and cancer outcomes, the BCSC provides long-term data on screening as it occurs in everyday clinical practice to help answer preventive health care questions.
Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years
In one article, Nicolien van Ravesteyn, MSc, Jeanne Mandelblatt, MD, MPH, and colleagues including Drs. Miglioretti and Buist identified the threshold of risk needed for women ages 40? to have comparable benefits and harms as seen when average-risk women aged 50? are screened every other year using mammography. They used four independent well-established simulation models that are part of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) collaborative. Ms. van Ravesteyn is a researcher at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, The Netherlands; and Dr. Mandelblatt is the associate director for population sciences at Georgetown University Medical Center's Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington, DC.
To estimate the benefits and harms of mammography screening for women in their 40s, the CISNET models used BCSC and other information on large populations of U.S. women. The results indicated that the benefits and harms from screening mammograms every two years for women 40-49 with a twofold increase in breast cancer risk are similar to those for average-risk women who start biennial screening at age 50. For annual screening, a fourfold increased risk level is where the benefits outweigh the harms for starting screening at age 40. There were only small differences in benefits using digital compared to plain-film mammography, but digital screening generates many more false-positive results than does plain film.
"Our population models show what can be expected across populations with different risk levels," Dr. Mandelblatt said. "The models cannot determine outcomes for individual women. Policymakers can use them to inform guidelines for populations."
Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years
The first author of the other article is Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, an investigator at the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University and Providence Cancer Center in Portland. With Drs. Buist and Miglioretti and colleagues including Ellen O'Meara, PhD, a research associate at Group Health Research Institute, Dr. Nelson conducted a meta-analysisa rigorous review of previous studiesfrom 66 publications selected for their relevance and quality. They also conducted new analyses using BCSC data on more than 380,000 women who were 40-49 when they had a screening mammogram from 1994 to 2010, to see how family history and other risk factors affected breast cancer risk for women in their 40s.
Results indicated:
having a first-degree relative with breast cancer, especially one under age 50, increased risk by more than twofold
having extremely dense breasts on a mammogram increased risk by more than twofold
having a previous benign breast biopsy, a second-degree relative with breast cancer, or breast tissue that was heterogeneously dense on a mammogram increased risk between 1.5-fold and twofold.
"Most of the risk factors that we considered did not increase breast cancer risk," Dr. Nelson said. Other potential risk factors that they evaluatedsuch as race/ethnicity, body mass index, physical activity, and using alcohol, tobacco, or hormone therapyhad effects that were either small, undetectable, or equivocal. "Our results indicate that we can focus on just a few significant risk factors to simplify approaches to risk-based screening for women in their 40s," she added.
The research in the two articles was possible because three national research groupsBCSC, CISNET, and the Evidence-based Practice Centerjoined forces. Each contributed unique strengths: extensive data, comprehensive breast cancer models, and data interpretation. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force previously used information from the three groups to develop its current breast cancer screening recommendations.
In an accompanying editorial, Otis Webb Brawley, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of the American Cancer Society and author of the book How We Harm, referred to the BCSC and CISNET as "national treasures."
The authors called for additional research based on the findings, to see how well these risk estimates, which are based on large numbers of women, predict risks for individual women. In the meantime, said Dr. Buist, "taken together, the results from these articles provide strong evidence that professional groups can use to refine screening guidelines."
###
Funding was from the National Cancer Institute. The collaboration between BCSC, CISNET, and the Evidence-based Practice Center was supported in part by the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and by the National Cancer Institute, which recently awarded a $20 million National Cancer Institute Program Project grant, co-led by Dr. Miglioretti, to the BCSC.
Ms. van Ravesteyn and Drs. Mandelblatt, Nelson, Buist, Miglioretti, and O'Meara's collaborators were Bernadette Zakher, MBBS, Amy Cantor, MD, MPH, Rongwei Fu, PhD, and Jessica Griffin, MS, of the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland; Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk, PhD, and Harry J. de Koning, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC, in Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Karla Kerlikowske, MD, MS, of the University of California San Francisco; Amy Trentham-Dietz, PhD, and Oguzhan Alagoz, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Natasha K. Stout, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston; Sandra J. Lee, DSc, and Hui Huang, MS, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston; Clyde B. Schechter, MD, MA, of Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York; and Aimee M. Near, MPH, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center in Washington DC.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) is the nation's largest and most comprehensive collection of breast cancer screening information. It's a research resource for studies designed to assess the delivery and quality of breast cancer screening and related patient outcomes in the United States. The BCSC is a National Cancer Institute-funded collaborative network of seven mammography registries with linkages to tumor and/or pathology registries. The network is supported by a central Statistical Coordinating Center. Currently, the Consortium's database contains information on over 9.5 million mammographic examinations, 2.3 million women, and 114,000 breast cancer cases (95,000 invasive cancers and 19,000 ductal carcinoma in situ). More information: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov.
Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network
The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) is a consortium of NCI-sponsored investigators that use statistical modeling to improve our understanding of cancer control interventions in prevention, screening, and treatment and their effects on population trends in incidence and mortality. These models can be used to guide public health research and priorities. More information: http://cisnet.cancer.gov.
Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center
The Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center (Oregon EPC) conducts systematic reviews of health care topics for federal and state agencies and private foundations. These reviews report the evidence from clinical research studies and the quality of that evidence for use by policymakers in decisions on guidelines and coverage. The Center is one of 14 EPCs sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). More information: http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/centers-institutes/evidence-based-practice-center.
Group Health Research Institute
Founded in 1947, Group Health Cooperative is a Seattle-based, consumer-governed, nonprofit health care system. Group Health Research Institute changed its name from Group Health Center for Health Studies in 2009. Since 1983, the Institute has conducted nonproprietary public-interest research on preventing, diagnosing, and treating major health problems. Government and private research grants provide its main funding. More information: http://grouphealthresearch.org.
[ | E-mail | Share ]
?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
I'm not sure why nobody showed me this Metroid-style battery widget before, but I'm holding each and every single one of you personally responsible for this oversight.
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vuZTXhF7SExp4tkHcFAH6Q-KrDNnXwJVEal35E6AScTVfnku5bPSvXyGwjnKGzyFXGTeeYnS3Y9HIUIvyvVZc6MJ_t5GZiLS1qn44Ha5U=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 1-May-2012
Share ] 
