Examination of potential novel biochemical factors in relation to prostate cancer incidence and mortality in UK Biobank

Background Although prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer death, its aetiology is not well understood. We aimed to identify novel biochemical factors for prostate cancer incidence and mortality in UK Biobank.Methods A range of cardiovascular, bone, joint, diabetes, renal and liver-related biomarkers were measured in baseline blood samples collected from up to 211,754 men at recruitment and in a subsample 5 years later. Participants were followed-up via linkage to health administrative datasets to identify prostate cancer cases. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression corrected for regression dilution bias. Multiple testing was accounted for by using a false discovery rate controlling procedure.Results After an average follow-up of 6.9 years, 5763 prostate cancer cases and 331 prostate cancer deaths were ascertained. Prostate cancer incidence was positively associated with circulating vitamin D, urea and phosphate concentrations and inversely associated with glucose, total protein and aspartate aminotransferase. Phosphate and cystatin-C were the only biomarkers positively and inversely, respectively, associated with risk in analyses excluding the first 4 years of follow-up. There was little evidence of associations with prostate cancer death.Conclusion We found novel associations of several biomarkers with prostate cancer incidence. Future research will examine associations by tumour characteristics.Subject terms: Predictive markers, Prostate cancer, Risk factors     

What to expect when you're expecting a hepatopancreatobiliary surgeon: self-reported experiences of HPB surgeons from different training pathways

BackgroundHepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery fellowship training has multiple paths. Prospective trainees and employers must understand the differences between training pathways. This study examines self-reported fellowship experiences and current scope of practice across three pathways.MethodsAn online survey was disseminated to 654 surgeons. These included active Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (AHPBA) members and recent graduates of HPB, transplant–HPB and HPB–heavy surgical oncology fellowships.ResultsA total of 416 (64%) surgeons responded. Most respondents were male (89%) and most were practising in an academic setting (83%). 290 (70%) respondents underwent formal fellowship training. Although fellowship experiences varied, current practice was largely similar. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and ultrasound were the most commonly identified areas of training deficiencies and were, respectively, cited as such by 47% and 34% of HPB-, 49% and 50% of transplant-, and 52% and 25% of surgical oncology-trained respondents. Non-HPB cases performed in current practice included gastrointestinal (GI) and general surgery cases (56% and 49%, respectively) for HPB-trained respondents, transplant and general surgery cases (87% and 21%, respectively) for transplant-trained respondents, and GI surgery and non-HPB surgical oncology cases (70% and 28%, respectively) for surgical oncology-trained respondents.ConclusionsFellowship training in HPB surgery varies by training pathway. Training in MIS and ultrasound is deficient in each pathway. The ultimate scope of non-transplant HPB practice appears similar across training pathways. Thus, training pathway choice is best guided by the training experience desired and non-HPB components of anticipated practice.