Ваша жизнь в ваших руках. Как понять, победить и предотвратить рак груди и яичников
Шрифт:
26. Davis, Devra Lee, Axelrod, Deborah, Osborne, Michael P. and Telang, Nitin Т., 1997. Environmental influences on Breast Cancer Risk, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, Science and Medicine. May/June.
27. Colborn, Т., Dumanoski, D. and Myers, J.P., 1996. Our Stolen Futures, Dutton, Penguin Books, USA.
28. Dyson, Т., 1999. Prospects for feeding the world. British Medical Journal, 319, 988–991.
29. Reuters, 8 October 1998.
30. McMurry, Laura М., Oethinger, Margaret, Levy, Stuart B., 1998. Triclosan targets lipid synthesis. Nature, 394, 6693, 531–532.
31. Trichopoulos, Dimitrios, Li, Frederick, V. and Hunter, David J, 1996. What Causes Cancer? Scientific American, Special Issue, What you need to know about Cancer, September, 275, 3, 80–85.
Глава 7
1. Campbell, T.C. and Junshi, C., 1994. Diet and chronic degenerative disease perspectives from China. Am. J Clin. Nutr, 59, Suppl., 11 535-11 615.
2. Packham, D.E., 1999. Impacts of Commercialisation and Privatisation on Capabilities for Scientific Advice, Oracles or Scapegoats? IPMS Conference notes. October.
3. Packham, D.E., 1999. Impacts of Commercialisation and Privatisation on Capabilities for Scientific Advice, Oracles or Scapegoats? IPMS Conference notes, October.
4. Association of University Teachers. Efficiency Gains or Quality Losses? 1996 (Based on DfEE and Welsh Office figures).
5. Bok, D., 1990. In: Universities and the Future of America, Duke University Press, Durham NC.
6. Glantz, S.A., 1996. Times Higher Education Supplement, 6 September, p. 15. and Glantz, S.A.,Slade, J., Bero, L.A., Hanauer, P. and Barnes, D.E., 1996. The Cigarette Papers, University of California Press.
7. Packham, D.E., 1999. Impacts of Commercialisation and Privatisation on Capabilities for Scientific Advice, Oracles or Scapegoats? IPMS Conference notes, October. See also: Packham, David and Tasker, Mary, 1997. Industry and the academy – a Faustian contract. Industry and Higher Education, April, 85–90.
8. Packham, D.E., 1999. Impacts of Commercialisation and Privatisation on Capabilities for Scientific Advice, Oracles or Scapegoats? IPMS Conference notes, October. See also: Packham,
David and Tasker, Mary, 1997. Industry and the academy– a Faustian contract. Industry and Higher Education, April, 85–90.
9. Jasanoff, S., 1997. Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understand. Sei. 6, 221–232.
10. McMichael, A.J. and Powles, J.W, 1999. Human numbers, environment, sustainability and health. British Medical Journal, 319, 9 October, 977–980.
Дополнение
1. www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002919.htm
2. McKenna, Claire, 2002. UK has highest reduction in deaths from lung and breast cancer. BMJ, 325, 63.
3. Irwig, Les, 2006. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ, 332, 678–679.
4. Anon, 2006. Screening for breast cancer. BMJ, 332, 499–500.
5. www.nlm.nih.gov/medineplus/ency/article/002919.htm
6. e.g. Baum,
М., 2000. Survival and reduction in mortality from breast cancer – Impact of mammographic screening is hot clear (Letter). BMJ, 321, 1470.7. Spurgeon, David, 2002. Annual mammography in women in their 40s does not cut death rate. BMJ, 325, 563.
8. Spurgeon, David, 2002. Annual mammography in women in their 40s does not cut death rate. BMJ, 325, 563.
9. Josefson, Deborah, 2002. Breast self-examination does not improve cancer survival. BMJ, 325, 793.
10. Zackrisson S. and others, 2006. Rare of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15years after end of Malmo mammographic screening trial; follow up study. BMJ, 332, 689–692.
11. Anon, 2006. Screening for breast cancer. BMJ, 332, 499–500.
12. Symonds, R. Paul, 2002. Cancer biology may be more important than diagnostic delay. BMJ, 325, 774.
13. Spurgeon, David, 2002. Annual mammography in women in their 40s does not cut death rate. BMJ, 325, 563.
14. www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen
15. White, Caroline, 2002. ‘Unacceptable’ errors found in breast screening process. BMJ, 324, 933.
16. UK National Radiological Protection Board, www.nrpb.org/ radiation_topics/risks/exposure.htm
17. Irwig, Les, 2006. Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer. BMJ, 332, 678–679.
18. www.well-connected.com/rreports/doc06full.html
19. www.well-connected.con’i/rreports/doc06full.html
20. Keyomarsi, K., Tucker, S.L., Buchholz, T.A., Callister, M., Ding, Y., Hortobagyi, G.N., Bedrosian, I. Knickerbocker, C., Toyofuku, W, Lowe, M., Herliczek, T.W, and Bacus, S.S., 2002. Cyclin E and Survival in Patients with Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med, 347, 1566–1575.
21. Yancik, R. and Ries, L.A., 1994. Cancer in older persons. Magnitude of the problem – how do we apply what we know? Cancer, 74 (7 Suppl), 1995–2003.
22. Silliman, R.A. and Baeke, P., 1998. Breast cancer in the older woman. In: Balducci, L., Ersher, W B. and Lyman, G.H., Comprehensive geriatric oncology. Amsterdam: Harwood.
23. Welch, H.G., Albertson, EC., Nease, R.E, Bubolz, T.A. and Wasson, J.H., 1996. Estimating treatment benefits for the elderly: the effect of competing risks. Ann Intern Med, 124, 577–584.
24. Holmes, EE, 1994. Clinical course of cancer in the elderly. Cancer Control, 1, 108–114.
25. Nixon, A.J., Neuberg, D., Hayes, D.E, Gelman, R., Connolly, J.L., Schnitt, S. and others, 1994. Relationship of patient age to pathological features of the tumor and prognosis for patients with stage I or II breast cancer./ Clin Oncol, 12, 888–894.