Could a Test Determine Your Risk of Prostate Cancer?

While prostate cancer can be so slow to develop in some men that it never affects their wellbeing at all, for others the health concern can be a real killer. Up to now, there is no way to identify those whose wellness is at a high risk of dying from the disease, but scientists believe they have come one step closer. This breakthrough, which comes from the Institute of Cancer Research in London, means that we could soon have genetic tests that can identify high-risk men with prostate cancer – enabling them to be monitored throughout their lives – and other men who can avoid unnecessary treatment.

 

Award-winning wellness writer Sarah Boseley explains, ‘In some men, prostate cancer is so slow-growing that it will not cause them any harm in their lifetime – they will die with it, rather than of it. But in others, it is aggressive and a killer. Because side-effects of treatment can include impotence and incontinence, it has long been recognised that there is a need for tests to establish which men are in real danger and which are not.’ The researchers screened men from families with a history of prostate cancer, and, as a result have established that 14 mutations in known cancer genes can predict life-threatening disease. The investigators, who published their findings in the British Journal of Cancer, also found that men with these mutations were likely to have more aggressive disease.

 

Study co-leader Ros Eeles, professor of oncogenics at the Institute of Cancer Research and honorary consultant at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, commented, ‘Our study shows the potential benefit of putting prostate cancer on a par with cancers such as breast cancer when it comes to genetic testing. Although ours was a small, first-stage study, we proved that testing for known cancer mutations can pick out men who are destined to have a more aggressive form of prostate cancer. We already have the technical capabilities to assess men for multiple mutations at once, so all that remains is for us to do further work to prove that picking up dangerous mutations early can save lives. If so, then in the future, genetic testing may be needed as part of the prostate cancer care pathway.’

 

As a result of these findings, doctors could screen men with prostate cancer in the family for their risk, much in the same way that doctors can now screen women for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which gives them a 50% chance of developing breast cancer. The 14 mutations which predict aggressive prostate cancer are in eight genes, which include BRCA1 and BRCA2. The others are ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, MUTYH, PALB2 and PMS2. According to Dr Iain Frame, director of research at Prostate Cancer UK, ‘The minefield of prostate cancer diagnosis is one of the biggest hurdles facing treatment of the disease today. Current tests fail to differentiate between aggressive cancers that could go on to kill, and cancers that may never cause any harm.’

 

He continues, ‘This lack of clarity means that too often men and their doctors are left having to make incredibly difficult decisions on whether to treat the disease or not. We urgently need to understand more about which men are at risk of developing prostate cancer and in particular aggressive forms of the disease. Genetic testing to predict risk could revolutionise how we treat the 40,000 men diagnosed with the disease every year in the UK. These results are exciting as they add to the growing weight of evidence that men with a family history of prostate cancer who possess certain genes may be at higher risk, providing us with another crucial piece of the jigsaw.’

Categories: breast cancer, cancer, cancer research, Disease, genetic testing, high risk, prostate, prostate cancer, Research, risk, risk assessment

The 5-Step Way to Deal with Employee Mental Health Concerns

It’s now commonly accepted that mental health issues are a concern. Therefore, as an employer you cannot keep your head in the sand; you need to take note of your employees’ mental wellbeing. Mental health issues have an impact on corporate wellness, not only affecting your employees on a personal level, but also your company’s success.

 

However, workplaces are still trying to minimise the issues relating to mental health of an individual as a strategy in order to delay action. According to a recent survey of ASX Top 300 companies, ‘over 40% of participants did not perceive mental illness as a potential risk to their organisation, and of those that did, close to half, said their organisation did not have policies in place to manage this risk. In addition, nearly 70% of those surveyed reported that they did not have a dedicated and properly trained resource to identify and manage an employee suffering from mental illness.’

 

According to Debra Brodowski, Manager of the Psychological Assessments Centre for Corporate Health, ‘From a broader workplace perspective, it is acknowledged that mental health issues do not only affect the actual individual in question. To this end, it is noted that there is a wider impact of the team members to consider when there is an employee with mental health issues. Team members may be supporting their colleague with a mental health issue, and as such this may take a toll on the team in relation to wellbeing, team workload, organisational morale, and workplace productivity.’

 

Therefore, it is vital that you address mental health issues in the workplace. In order to this effectively, you need to follow the five-step assessment process recommended by the WHS:

 

1. Identify the Risk: Brodowski explains, ‘An employer must identify any foreseeable hazard (read: perceived stressor) that may arise from the conduct of the employer’s undertaking and that has the potential to harm the health and safety of an employee or other person.’

 

2. Assess the Risk: ‘An employer must assess the risk arising from any hazard (perceived stressor) that is identified at the time the risk arises,’ says Brodowski. ‘Or before changes to work practices/ systems are made.’

 

3. Review the Risk: Brodowski urges, ‘An employer must review the risk when injury or illness arises (i.e. when stress due to work is highlighted) or when significant changes are proposed to work practises/ systems of work.’

 

4. Eliminate the Risk: ‘An employer must aim to eliminate the risk,’ Brodowski notes. ‘Or if not practical, control the risk.’

 

5. Control the Risk: ‘An employer must make attempts to control the risk,’ Brodowski asserts. You can do this in a number of ways. Firstly, you can isolate the person from the hazard or perceived stressor. Then, you could minimise the risk itself. Finally, you can take administrative steps, such as training, to reduce the risk.

 

Brodowski argues, ‘Under this risk assessment process, the duty of care for the employer shifts the focus from a reaction/ intervention model to one that is adopts a prevention/ elimination of risk stance. As an employer, to act appropriately to an individual who is presenting with mental health issue in the workplace, and therefore meet corporate responsibility under duty of care, there is a need to develop an appropriate framework to recognise, respond, and review each individual with a mental health issue as it arises.’ Indeed, there is a certain financial cost in doing so, but Brodowski urges, ‘The wider impact on workplace relationships, organisational culture and workplace productivity are much broader in nature and are considered to be more significant. As such, nowadays, effectively identifying and responding to mental health issues needs to be considered as a standard workplace health and safety practice for an e

Categories: assessment process, employees, health issue, health issues, Mental Health, perceived stressor, risk assessment, risk brodowski, team members, wider impact, workplace productivity