Le problème du Pseudo-Hugo : qui a écrit l’Histoire de Hugues Falcand ?

Au cours des dernières années, plusieurs individus, tous du nord de la France, ont été proposés comme auteurs possibles pour le Liber de Regno Sicilie, généralement attribué au soi-disant « Hugo Falcandus ». Cet article évalue de façon critique les indices qui argumentent cette théorie, réexamine le texte lui-même, ainsi que la « Lettre à Pierre », qui est presque certainement écrite par le même auteur, afin de voir les indications qui peuvent être trouvées sur l’auteur. Bien que les preuves soient contradictoires, l’un dans l’autre, il semble plus probable qu’Hugo Falcandus, quelle qu’ait été son identité, était originaire du regnum plutôt que de l’Europe du Nord.In recent years several candidates, all from northern France, have been suggested as possible authors for the Liber de Regno Sicilie commonly ascribed to the so-called “Hugo Falcandus”. This article critically assesses the evidence for these theories, and re-examines the text itself, and the “Letter to Peter”, which is almost certainly by the same author, to see what indications of authorship can be found therein. While the evidence is contradictory, on balance it appears more probable that “Hugo Falcandus”, whoever he may have been, was a native of the regno rather than someone from northern Europe.Nel corso degli ultimi anni sono diversi i personaggi, tutti provenienti dal nord della Francia, che sono stati proposti come possibili autori del Liber de regno Sicilie, generalmente attribuito al cosiddetto "Ugo Falcando". Questo articolo esamina criticamente le prove che sostengono questa teoria, e scendendo in un esame stretto dei testi, compresa la "Lettera a Pietro", opera certamente dello stesso autore del Liber, prova a mettere insieme nuovi elementi per l’individuazione dell’autore. Ed anche se le prove che emergono sono a tratti contraddittorie, sembra molto più probabile che il cosiddetto Ugo Falcando sia da individuare in un native del regno, piuttosto che in un personaggio proveniente dal nord della Francia, qualunque fosse la sua identita

Achieving consensus on psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management for people living with kidney disease

From Crossref journal articles via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: epub 2023-05-19, issued 2023-05-19Article version: AMPublication status: PublishedPelagia Koufaki - ORCID: 0000-0002-1406-3729 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1406-3729Background People living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) need to be able to live well with their condition. The provision of psychosocial interventions (psychological, psychiatric, and social care) and physical rehabilitation management is variable across England, as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a need for clear recommendations for standards of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation care for people living with CKD, and guidance for the commissioning and measurement of these services. The NHS England Renal Services Transformation Programme (RSTP) supported a programme of work and modified Delphi process to address the management of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation care as part of a larger body of work to formulate a comprehensive commissioning toolkit for renal care services across England. We sought to achieve expert consensus regarding the psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management of people living with CKD in England and the rest of the UK. Method A Delphi consensus method was used to gather and refine expert opinions of senior members of the kidney multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and other key stakeholders in the UK. An agreement was sought on 16 statements reflecting aspects of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management for people living with CKD. Results Twenty-six expert practitioners and other key stakeholders, including lived experience representatives, participated in the process. The consensus (>80% affirmative votes) amongst the respondents for all 16 statements was high. Nine recommendation statements were discussed and refined further to be included in the final iteration of the ‘Systems’ section of the NHS England RSTP commissioning toolkit. These priority recommendations reflect pragmatic solutions that can be implemented in renal care and include recommendations for a holistic well-being assessment for all people living with CKD who are approaching dialysis, or who are at listing for kidney transplantation, which includes the use of validated measurement tools to assess the need for further intervention in psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management. It is recommended that the scores from these measurement tools be included in the NHS England Renal Data Dashboard. There was also a recommendation for referral as appropriate to NHS Talking therapies, psychology, counselling or psychotherapy, social work or liaison psychiatry for those with identified psychosocial needs. The use of digital resources was recommended to be used in addition to face-to-face care to provide physical rehabilitation, and all healthcare professionals should be educated to recognise psychosocial and physical rehabilitation needs and refer/sign-post people with CKD to appropriate services. Conclusion There was high consensus amongst senior members of the kidney MDT and other key stakeholders, including those with lived experience, in the UK on all aspects of the psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management of people living with CKD. The results of this process will be used by NHS England to inform the ‘Systems’ section of the commissioning toolkit and data dashboard and to inform the National Standards of Care for people living with CKD.inpressinpres

Achieving consensus on psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management for people living with kidney disease

Data Availability Statement The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. Background People living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) need to be able to live well with their condition. The provision of psychosocial interventions (psychological, psychiatric, and social care) and physical rehabilitation management is variable across England, as well as the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a need for clear recommendations for standards of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation care for people living with CKD, and guidance for the commissioning and measurement of these services. The NHS England Renal Services Transformation Programme (RSTP) supported a programme of work and modified Delphi process to address the management of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation care as part of a larger body of work to formulate a comprehensive commissioning toolkit for renal care services across England. We sought to achieve expert consensus regarding the psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management of people living with CKD in England and the rest of the UK. Method A Delphi consensus method was used to gather and refine expert opinions of senior members of the kidney multi-disciplinary team (MDT) and other key stakeholders in the UK. An agreement was sought on 16 statements reflecting aspects of psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management for people living with CKD. Results Twenty-six expert practitioners and other key stakeholders, including lived experience representatives, participated in the process. The consensus (>80% affirmative votes) amongst the respondents for all 16 statements was high. Nine recommendation statements were discussed and refined further to be included in the final iteration of the ‘Systems’ section of the NHS England RSTP commissioning toolkit. These priority recommendations reflect pragmatic solutions that can be implemented in renal care and include recommendations for a holistic well-being assessment for all people living with CKD who are approaching dialysis, or who are at listing for kidney transplantation, which includes the use of validated measurement tools to assess the need for further intervention in psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management. It is recommended that the scores from these measurement tools be included in the NHS England Renal Data Dashboard. There was also a recommendation for referral as appropriate to NHS Talking therapies, psychology, counselling or psychotherapy, social work or liaison psychiatry for those with identified psychosocial needs. The use of digital resources was recommended to be used in addition to face-to-face care to provide physical rehabilitation, and all healthcare professionals should be educated to recognise psychosocial and physical rehabilitation needs and refer/sign-post people with CKD to appropriate services. Conclusion There was high consensus amongst senior members of the kidney MDT and other key stakeholders, including those with lived experience, in the UK on all aspects of the psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management of people living with CKD. The results of this process will be used by NHS England to inform the ‘Systems’ section of the commissioning toolkit and data dashboard and to inform the National Standards of Care for people living with CKD

BRCA2 polymorphic stop codon K3326X and the risk of breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers

Background: The K3326X variant in BRCA2 (BRCA2*c.9976A>T; p.Lys3326*; rs11571833) has been found to be associated with small increased risks of breast cancer. However, it is not clear to what extent linkage disequilibrium with fully pathogenic mutations might account for this association. There is scant information about the effect of K3326X in other hormone-related cancers. Methods: Using weighted logistic regression, we analyzed data from the large iCOGS study including 76 637 cancer case patients and 83 796 control patients to estimate odds ratios (ORw) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for K3326X variant carriers in relation to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer risks, with weights defined as probability of not having a pathogenic BRCA2 variant. Using Cox proportional hazards modeling, we also examined the associations of K3326X with breast and ovarian cancer risks among 7183 BRCA1 variant carriers. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: The K3326X variant was associated with breast (ORw = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.40, P = 5.9x10- 6) and invasive ovarian cancer (ORw = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.43, P = 3.8x10-3). These associations were stronger for serous ovarian cancer and for estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer (ORw = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.70, P = 3.4x10-5 and ORw = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.76, P = 4.1x10-5, respectively). For BRCA1 mutation carriers, there was a statistically significant inverse association of the K3326X variant with risk of ovarian cancer (HR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.84, P = .013) but no association with breast cancer. No association with prostate cancer was observed. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that the K3326X variant is associated with risk of developing breast and ovarian cancers independent of other pathogenic variants in BRCA2. Further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanism of action responsible for these associations

Defining Priorities for Future Research:Results of the UK Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership

It has been suggested that the research priorities of those funding and performing research in transplantation may differ from those of end service users such as patients, carers and healthcare professionals involved in day-to-day care. The Kidney Transplant Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) was established with the aim of involving all stakeholders in prioritising future research in the field.The PSP methodology is as outlined by the James Lind Alliance. An initial survey collected unanswered research questions from patients, carers and clinicians. Duplicate and out-of-scope topics were excluded and the existing literature searched to identify topics answered by current evidence. An interim prioritisation survey asked patients and professionals to score the importance of the remaining questions to create a ranked long-list. These were considered at a final consensus workshop using a modified nominal group technique to agree a final top ten.The initial survey identified 497 questions from 183 respondents, covering all aspects of transplantation from assessment through to long-term follow-up. These were grouped into 90 unanswered "indicative" questions. The interim prioritisation survey received 256 responses (34.8% patients/carers, 10.9% donors and 54.3% professionals), resulting in a ranked list of 25 questions that were considered during the final workshop. Participants agreed a top ten priorities for future research that included optimisation of immunosuppression (improved monitoring, choice of regimen, personalisation), prevention of sensitisation and transplanting the sensitised patient, management of antibody-mediated rejection, long-term risks to live donors, methods of organ preservation, induction of tolerance and bioengineering of organs. There was evidence that patient and carer involvement had a significant impact on shaping the final priorities.The final list of priorities relates to all stages of the transplant process, including access to transplantation, living donation, organ preservation, post-transplant care and management of the failing transplant. This list of priorities will provide an invaluable resource for researchers and funders to direct future activity

A case-only study to identify genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers

Breast cancer (BC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers varies by genetic and familial factors. About 50 common variants have been shown to modify BC risk for mutation carriers. All but three, were identified in general population studies. Other mutation carrier-specific susceptibility variants may exist but studies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered. We conduct a novel case-only genome-wide association study comparing genotype frequencies between 60,212 general population BC cases and 13,007 cases with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We identify robust novel associations for 2 variants with BC for BRCA1 and 3 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, P < 10−8, at 5 loci, which are not associated with risk in the general population. They include rs60882887 at 11p11.2 where MADD, SP11 and EIF1, genes previously implicated in BC biology, are predicted as potential targets. These findings will contribute towards customising BC polygenic risk scores for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

A case-only study to identify genetic modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Breast cancer (BC) risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers varies by genetic and familial factors. About 50 common variants have been shown to modify BC risk for mutation carriers. All but three, were identified in general population studies. Other mutation carrier-specific susceptibility variants may exist but studies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered. We conduct a novel case-only genome-wide association study comparing genotype frequencies between 60,212 general population BC cases and 13,007 cases with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We identify robust novel associations for 2 variants with BC for BRCA1 and 3 for BRCA2 mutation carriers, P < 10-8, at 5 loci, which are not associated with risk in the general population. They include rs60882887 at 11p11.2 where MADD, SP11 and EIF1, genes previously implicated in BC biology, are predicted as potential targets. These findings will contribute towards customising BC polygenic risk scores for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Functional mechanisms underlying pleiotropic risk alleles at the 19p13.1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility locus

A locus at 19p13 is associated with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Here we analyse 438 SNPs in this region in 46,451 BC and 15,438 OC cases, 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 73,444 controls and identify 13 candidate causal SNPs associated with serous OC (P=9.2 × 10-20), ER-negative BC (P=1.1 × 10-13), BRCA1-associated BC (P=7.7 × 10-16) and triple negative BC (P-diff=2 × 10-5). Genotype-gene expression associations are identified for candidate target genes ANKLE1 (P=2 × 10-3) and ABHD8 (P<2 × 10-3). Chromosome conformation capture identifies interactions between four candidate SNPs and ABHD8, and luciferase assays indicate six risk alleles increased transactivation of the ADHD8 promoter. Targeted deletion of a region containing risk SNP rs56069439 in a putative enhancer induces ANKLE1 downregulation; and mRNA stability assays indicate functional effects for an ANKLE1 3′-UTR SNP. Altogether, these data suggest that multiple SNPs at 19p13 regulate ABHD8 and perhaps ANKLE1 expression, and indicate common mechanisms underlying breast and ovarian cancer risk

The FANCM:p.Arg658* truncating variant is associated with risk of triple-negative breast cancer.

Breast cancer is a common disease partially caused by genetic risk factors. Germline pathogenic variants in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM, and CHEK2 are associated with breast cancer risk. FANCM, which encodes for a DNA translocase, has been proposed as a breast cancer predisposition gene, with greater effects for the ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtypes. We tested the three recurrent protein-truncating variants FANCM:p.Arg658*, p.Gln1701*, and p.Arg1931* for association with breast cancer risk in 67,112 cases, 53,766 controls, and 26,662 carriers of pathogenic variants of BRCA1 or BRCA2. These three variants were also studied functionally by measuring survival and chromosome fragility in FANCM -/- patient-derived immortalized fibroblasts treated with diepoxybutane or olaparib. We observed that FANCM:p.Arg658* was associated with increased risk of ER-negative disease and TNBC (OR = 2.44, P = 0.034 and OR = 3.79; P = 0.009, respectively). In a country-restricted analysis, we confirmed the associations detected for FANCM:p.Arg658* and found that also FANCM:p.Arg1931* was associated with ER-negative breast cancer risk (OR = 1.96; P = 0.006). The functional results indicated that all three variants were deleterious affecting cell survival and chromosome stability with FANCM:p.Arg658* causing more severe phenotypes. In conclusion, we confirmed that the two rare FANCM deleterious variants p.Arg658* and p.Arg1931* are risk factors for ER-negative and TNBC subtypes. Overall our data suggest that the effect of truncating variants on breast cancer risk may depend on their position in the gene. Cell sensitivity to olaparib exposure, identifies a possible therapeutic option to treat FANCM-associated tumors

Genome-wide association study identifies 32 novel breast cancer susceptibility loci from overall and subtype-specific analyses.

Breast cancer susceptibility variants frequently show heterogeneity in associations by tumor subtype1-3. To identify novel loci, we performed a genome-wide association study including 133,384 breast cancer cases and 113,789 controls, plus 18,908 BRCA1 mutation carriers (9,414 with breast cancer) of European ancestry, using both standard and novel methodologies that account for underlying tumor heterogeneity by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and tumor grade. We identified 32 novel susceptibility loci (P < 5.0 × 10-8), 15 of which showed evidence for associations with at least one tumor feature (false discovery rate < 0.05). Five loci showed associations (P < 0.05) in opposite directions between luminal and non-luminal subtypes. In silico analyses showed that these five loci contained cell-specific enhancers that differed between normal luminal and basal mammary cells. The genetic correlations between five intrinsic-like subtypes ranged from 0.35 to 0.80. The proportion of genome-wide chip heritability explained by all known susceptibility loci was 54.2% for luminal A-like disease and 37.6% for triple-negative disease. The odds ratios of polygenic risk scores, which included 330 variants, for the highest 1% of quantiles compared with middle quantiles were 5.63 and 3.02 for luminal A-like and triple-negative disease, respectively. These findings provide an improved understanding of genetic predisposition to breast cancer subtypes and will inform the development of subtype-specific polygenic risk scores