Searching for the Kuhnian moment : the Black-Scholes-Merton formula and the evolution of modern finance theory

The Black-Scholes-Merton formula has been put to widespread use by options traders because it provides a means of calculating the theoretically 'correct' price of stock options. Traders can therefore see whether the market price of stock options undervalues or overvalues them compared with their hypothetical Black-Scholes-Merton price, before choosing to buy or sell options accordingly. As a consequence of this close relationship between options pricing theory and options pricing practice, a strong performativity loop was activated, whereby market prices quickly converged on the hypothetical Black-Scholes-Merton prices following the dissemination of the formula. The theory has therefore had significant real-world effects, but how should we characterize the initial instinct to derive the theory from a philosophy of science perspective? The two books under review suggest that a Kuhnian reading of the advancement of scientific knowledge might well be the most appropriate. But, on closer inspection, it becomes clear that the publication of the Black-Scholes-Merton formula should not be seen as a Kuhnian moment with paradigm-shaping attributes. It is shown that, at most, the formula acts as an important exemplar which, via its use in the training of options pricing theorists and options pricing practitioners, reinforces the entrenchment of finance theory within the orthodox economics worldview

A prospective prostate cancer screening programme for men with pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes (IMPACT): initial results from an international prospective study.

Funder: Victorian Cancer AgencyFunder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Cancer Research UKFunder: Cancer Council TasmaniaFunder: Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIFunder: Cancer AustraliaFunder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el CáncerFunder: Cancer Council South AustraliaFunder: Swedish Cancer SocietyFunder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Institut Català de la SalutFunder: Cancer Council VictoriaFunder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of AustraliaFunder: National Institutes of HealthBACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer

Health System, Community-Based, or Usual Dementia Care for Persons With Dementia and Caregivers

ImportanceThe effectiveness of different approaches to dementia care is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of health system-based, community-based dementia care, and usual care for persons with dementia and for caregiver outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial of community-dwelling persons living with dementia and their caregivers conducted at 4 sites in the US (enrollment June 2019-January 2023; final follow-up, August 2023).InterventionsParticipants were randomized 7:7:1 to health system-based care provided by an advanced practice dementia care specialist (n = 1016); community-based care provided by a social worker, nurse, or licensed therapist care consultant (n = 1016); or usual care (n = 144).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were caregiver-reported Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) severity score for persons living with dementia (range, 0-36; higher scores, greater behavioral symptoms severity; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 2.8-3.2) and Modified Caregiver Strain Index for caregivers (range, 0-26; higher scores, greater strain; MCID, 1.5-2.3). Three secondary outcomes included caregiver self-efficacy (range, 4-20; higher scores, more self-efficacy).ResultsAmong 2176 dyads (individuals with dementia, mean age, 80.6 years; 58.4%, female; and 20.6%, Black or Hispanic; caregivers, mean age, 65.2 years; 75.8%, female; and 20.8% Black or Hispanic), primary outcomes were assessed for more than 99% of participants, and 1343 participants (62% of those enrolled and 91% still alive and had not withdrawn) completed the study through 18 months. No significant differences existed between the 2 treatments or between treatments vs usual care for the primary outcomes. Overall, the least squares means (LSMs) for NPI-Q scores were 9.8 for health system, 9.5 for community-based, and 10.1 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.30 (97.5% CI, -0.18 to 0.78); health system vs usual care, -0.33 (97.5% CI, -1.32 to 0.67); and community-based vs usual care, -0.62 (97.5% CI, -1.61 to 0.37). The LSMs for the Modified Caregiver Strain Index were 10.7 for health system, 10.5 for community-based, and 10.6 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.25 (97.5% CI, -0.16 to 0.66); health system vs usual care, 0.14 (97.5% CI, -0.70 to 0.99); and community-based vs usual care, -0.10 (97.5% CI, -0.94 to 0.74). Only the secondary outcome of caregiver self-efficacy was significantly higher for both treatments vs usual care but not between treatments: LSMs were 15.1 for health system, 15.2 for community-based, and 14.4 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was -0.16 (95% CI, -0.37 to 0.06); health system vs usual care, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.26-1.14); and community-based vs usual care, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.29).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03786471

Copy number variants as modifiers of breast cancer risk for BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers

The risk of germline copy number variants (CNVs) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers in breast cancer is assessed, with CNVs overlapping SULT1A1 decreasing breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.The contribution of germline copy number variants (CNVs) to risk of developing cancer in individuals with pathogenic BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants remains relatively unknown. We conducted the largest genome-wide analysis of CNVs in 15,342 BRCA1 and 10,740 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We used these results to prioritise a candidate breast cancer risk-modifier gene for laboratory analysis and biological validation. Notably, the HR for deletions in BRCA1 suggested an elevated breast cancer risk estimate (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21), 95% confidence interval (95% CI = 1.09-1.35) compared with non-CNV pathogenic variants. In contrast, deletions overlapping SULT1A1 suggested a decreased breast cancer risk (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers. Functional analyses of SULT1A1 showed that reduced mRNA expression in pathogenic BRCA1 variant cells was associated with reduced cellular proliferation and reduced DNA damage after treatment with DNA damaging agents. These data provide evidence that deleterious variants in BRCA1 plus SULT1A1 deletions contribute to variable breast cancer risk in BRCA1 carriers.Peer reviewe