Background It was recently demonstrated that a significant number of patients with common skin diseases across Europe are clinically depressed and anxious. Studies have shown that physicians not... Show moreBackground It was recently demonstrated that a significant number of patients with common skin diseases across Europe are clinically depressed and anxious. Studies have shown that physicians not trained as psychiatrists underdiagnose depression. This has not been explored among dermatologists. Objectives To estimate the concordance between clinical assessment of depression and anxiety by a dermatologist and assessment with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Methods The study was an observational cross‐sectional multicentre study of prevalent cases of skin diseases in 13 countries in Europe. Consecutive patients were recruited in outpatient clinics and filled in questionnaires prior to clinical examination by a dermatologist who reported any diagnosis of skin disease and signs of mood disorders.ResultsAnalysis of the 3635 consultations showed that the agreement between dermatologist and HADS was poor to fair (lower than 0·4) for all diagnosis categories. The true‐positive rate (represented by the percentage of dermatologists recognizing signs of depression or anxiety in patients with depression or anxiety as defined by a HADS value ≥ 11) was 44·0% for depression and 35·6% for anxiety. The true negative rate (represented by the percentage of dermatologists not detecting signs of depression or anxiety in non‐depressed or non‐anxious patients defined by HADS‐value < 11) was 88.8% for depression and 85.7% for anxiety.ConclusionsDermatologists in Europe tend to underestimate mood disorders. The results suggest that further training for dermatologists to improve their skills in diagnosing depression and anxiety might be appropriate. When present, the psychological suffering of patients with dermatological conditions needs to be addressed. Show less
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles are differentially associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation... Show moreABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated that common breast cancer susceptibility alleles are differentially associated with breast cancer risk for BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation carriers. It is currently unknown how these alleles are associated with different breast cancer subtypes in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers defined by estrogen (ER) or progesterone receptor (PR) status of the tumour. METHODS: We used genotype data on up to 11,421 BRCA1 and 7,080 BRCA2 carriers, of whom 4,310 had been affected with breast cancer and had information on either ER or PR status of the tumour, to assess the associations of 12 loci with breast cancer tumour characteristics. Associations were evaluated using a retrospective cohort approach. RESULTS: The results suggested stronger associations with ER-positive breast cancer than ER-negative for 11 loci in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Among BRCA1 carriers, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs2981582 (FGFR2) exhibited the biggest difference based on ER status (per-allele hazard ratio (HR) for ER-positive = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.56 vs HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.98 for ER-negative, P-heterogeneity = 6.5 × 10-6). In contrast, SNP rs2046210 at 6q25.1 near ESR1 was primarily associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. In BRCA2 carriers, SNPs in FGFR2, TOX3, LSP1, SLC4A7/NEK10, 5p12, 2q35, and 1p11.2 were significantly associated with ER-positive but not ER-negative disease. Similar results were observed when differentiating breast cancer cases by PR status. CONCLUSIONS: The associations of the 12 SNPs with risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers differ by ER-positive or ER-negative breast cancer status. The apparent differences in SNP associations between BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers, and non-carriers, may be explicable by differences in the prevalence of tumour subtypes. As more risk modifying variants are identified, incorporating these associations into breast cancer subtype-specific risk models may improve clinical management for mutation carriers. Show less