1. Home
  2. People Index
  3. Karsten Müller

Karsten Müller

About Karsten Müller:
No description specified

LHA-ID: 7WDP7C3Y2W-9

Location:  Germany

Expertise: Not specified

Tools: Not specified

ORCID: Not specified

help Their tags

This person has not yet tagged anything.

Related items

LIFE Adult

This population-based study examined 10,000 participants randomly selected from the Leipzig population (2011 to 2014). A follow-up is to be carried out from 2017 - 2020. The study mainly included people aged between 40 and 79. All participants underwent a 6-hour study program and people over 60 years of age were invited two more times to in-depth study of cognition and depression and the brain (MRI, EEG). Extensive measurements of genome, metabolome and transcriptome are available. The LIFE-ADULT
...

Programme: Epidemiology

Public web page: http://life.uni-leipzig.de/en/adults/life_adult.html

Start date: 1st Jan 2009

LIFE- Leipzig Research Center for Civilization Diseases: inactive since

Goal of the Leipzig Research Center for Civilization Diseases (LIFE) is the investigation of civilization diseases like depression, diabetes, allergies or cardiovascular diseases. For this purpose we collect as much data as possible regarding health and living conditions of the population in Leipzig and provide these data for scientists of the University of Leipzig and other research institutions.

Programme: Epidemiology

Public web page: http://life.uni-leipzig.de/

Start date: 1st Jan 2009

Hospital-wide ELectronic medical record evaluated computerised decision support system to improve outcomes of Patients with staphylococcal bloodstream infection (HELP): study protocol for a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial
SMITH

Abstract

Not specified

Authors: Stefan Hagel, Julia Gantner, Cord Spreckelsen, Claudia Fischer, Danny Ammon, Kutaiba Saleh, Lo An Phan-Vogtmann, Andrew Heidel, Susanne Müller, Alexander Helhorn, Henner Kruse, Eric Thomas, Florian Rißner, Silke Haferkamp, Jens Vorwerk, Saskia Deffge, Marc Fabian Juzek-Küpper, Norman Lippmann, Christoph Lübbert, Henning Trawinski, Sebastian Wendt, Thomas Wendt, Andreas Dürschmid, Margarethe Konik, Stefan Moritz, Daniel Tiller, Rainer Röhrig, Jonas Schulte-Coerne, Jonas Fortmann, Stephan Jonas, Oliver Witzke, Peter-Michael Rath, Mathias W Pletz, André Scherag

Date Published: 10th Feb 2020

Publication Type: Journal article

Human Diseases: staphyloenterotoxemia

Large scale multifactorial likelihood quantitative analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants: An ENIGMA resource to support clinical variant classification
German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Abstract (Expand)

The multifactorial likelihood analysis method has demonstrated utility for quantitative assessment of variant pathogenicity for multiple cancer syndrome genes. Independent data types currently incorporated … in the model for assessing BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants include clinically calibrated prior probability of pathogenicity based on variant location and bioinformatic prediction of variant effect, co-segregation, family cancer history profile, co-occurrence with a pathogenic variant in the same gene, breast tumor pathology, and case-control information. Research and clinical data for multifactorial likelihood analysis were collated for 1395 BRCA1/2 predominantly intronic and missense variants, enabling classification based on posterior probability of pathogenicity for 734 variants: 447 variants were classified as (likely) benign, and 94 as (likely) pathogenic; 248 classifications were new or considerably altered relative to ClinVar submissions. Classifications were compared to information not yet included in the likelihood model, and evidence strengths aligned to those recommended for ACMG/AMP classification codes. Altered mRNA splicing or function relative to known non-pathogenic variant controls were moderately to strongly predictive of variant pathogenicity. Variant absence in population datasets provided supporting evidence for variant pathogenicity. These findings have direct relevance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant evaluation, and justify the need for gene-specific calibration of evidence types used for variant classification. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Authors: Michael T. Parsons, Emma Tudini, Hongyan Li, Eric Hahnen, Barbara Wappenschmidt, Lidia Feliubadaló, Cora M. Aalfs, Simona Agata, Kristiina Aittomäki, Elisa Alducci, María Concepción Alonso-Cerezo, Norbert Arnold, Bernd Auber, Rachel Austin, Jacopo Azzollini, Judith Balmaña, Elena Barbieri, Claus R. Bartram, Ana Blanco, Britta Blümcke, Sandra Bonache, Bernardo Bonanni, Åke Borg, Beatrice Bortesi, Joan Brunet, Carla Bruzzone, Karolin Bucksch, Giulia Cagnoli, Trinidad Caldés, Almuth Caliebe, Maria A. Caligo, Mariarosaria Calvello, Gabriele L. Capone, Sandrine M. Caputo, Ileana Carnevali, Estela Carrasco, Virginie Caux-Moncoutier, Pietro Cavalli, Giulia Cini, Edward M. Clarke, Paola Concolino, Elisa J. Cops, Laura Cortesi, Fergus J. Couch, Esther Darder, Miguel de La Hoya, Michael Dean, Irmgard Debatin, Jesús Del Valle, Capucine Delnatte, Nicolas Derive, Orland Diez, Nina Ditsch, Susan M. Domchek, Véronique Dutrannoy, Diana M. Eccles, Hans Ehrencrona, Ute Enders, D. Gareth Evans, Ulrike Faust, Ute Felbor, Irene Feroce, Miriam Fine, Henrique C. R. Galvao, Gaetana Gambino, Andrea Gehrig, Francesca Gensini, Anne-Marie Gerdes, Aldo Germani, Jutta Giesecke, Viviana Gismondi, Carolina Gómez, Encarna B. Gómez Garcia, Sara González, Elia Grau, Sabine Grill, Eva Gross, Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga, Marine Guillaud-Bataille, Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez, Thomas Haaf, Karl Hackmann, Thomas v. O. Hansen, Marion Harris, Jan Hauke, Tilman Heinrich, Heide Hellebrand, Karen N. Herold, Ellen Honisch, Judit Horvath, Claude Houdayer, Verena Hübbel, Silvia Iglesias, Angel Izquierdo, Paul A. James, Linda A. M. Janssen, Udo Jeschke, Silke Kaulfuß, Katharina Keupp, Marion Kiechle, Alexandra Kölbl, Sophie Krieger, Torben A. Kruse, Anders Kvist, Fiona Lalloo, Mirjam Larsen, Vanessa L. Lattimore, Charlotte Lautrup, Susanne Ledig, Elena Leinert, Alexandra L. Lewis, Joanna Lim, Markus Loeffler, Adrià López-Fernández, Emanuela Lucci-Cordisco, Nicolai Maass, Siranoush Manoukian, Monica Marabelli, Laura Matricardi, Alfons Meindl, Rodrigo D. Michelli, Setareh Moghadasi, Alejandro Moles-Fernández, Marco Montagna, Gemma Montalban, Alvaro N. Monteiro, Eva Montes, Luigi Mori, Lidia Moserle, Clemens R. Müller, Christoph Mundhenke, Nadia Naldi, Katherine L. Nathanson, Matilde Navarro, Heli Nevanlinna, Cassandra B. Nichols, Dieter Niederacher, Henriette R. Nielsen, Kai-Ren Ong, Nicholas Pachter, Edenir I. Palmero, Laura Papi, Inge Sokilde Pedersen, Bernard Peissel, Pedro Pérez-Segura, Katharina Pfeifer, Marta Pineda, Esther Pohl-Rescigno, Nicola K. Poplawski, Berardino Porfirio, Anne S. Quante, Juliane Ramser, Rui M. Reis, Françoise Revillion, Kerstin Rhiem, Barbara Riboli, Julia Ritter, Daniela Rivera, Paula Rofes, Andreas Rump, Monica Salinas, Ana María Sánchez de Abajo, Gunnar Schmidt, Ulrike Schoenwiese, Jochen Seggewiß, Ares Solanes, Doris Steinemann, Mathias Stiller, Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet, Kelly J. Sullivan, Rachel Susman, Christian Sutter, Sean V. Tavtigian, Soo H. Teo, Alex Teulé, Mads Thomassen, Maria Grazia Tibiletti, Silvia Tognazzo, Amanda E. Toland, Eva Tornero, Therese Törngren, Sara Torres-Esquius, Angela Toss, Alison H. Trainer, Christi J. van Asperen, Marion T. van Mackelenbergh, Liliana Varesco, Gardenia Vargas-Parra, Raymonda Varon, Ana Vega, Ángela Velasco, Anne-Sophie Vesper, Alessandra Viel, Maaike P. G. Vreeswijk, Sebastian A. Wagner, Anke Waha, Logan C. Walker, Rhiannon J. Walters, Shan Wang-Gohrke, Bernhard H. F. Weber, Wilko Weichert, Kerstin Wieland, Lisa Wiesmüller, Isabell Witzel, Achim Wöckel, Emma R. Woodward, Silke Zachariae, Valentina Zampiga, Christine Zeder-Göß, Conxi Lázaro, Arcangela de Nicolo, Paolo Radice, Christoph Engel, Rita K. Schmutzler, David E. Goldgar, Amanda B. Spurdle

Date Published: 1st Sep 2019

Publication Type: Journal article

Human Diseases: hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome

Economic modeling of risk-adapted screen-and-treat strategies in women at high risk for breast or ovarian cancer
German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND The ’German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer’ (GC-HBOC) offers women with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer genetic counseling. The aim of this modeling study …y was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of genetic testing for BRCA 1/2 in women with a high familial risk followed by different preventive interventions (intensified surveillance, risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy, risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, or both mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy) compared to no genetic test. METHODS A Markov model with a lifelong time horizon was developed for a cohort of 35-year-old women with a BRCA 1/2 mutation probability of ≥ 10%. The perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI) was adopted. The model included the health states ’well’ (women with increased risk), ’breast cancer without metastases’, ’breast cancer with metastases’, ’ovarian cancer’, ’death’, and two post (non-metastatic) breast or ovarian cancer states. Outcomes were costs, quality of life years gained (QALYs) and life years gained (LYG). Important data used for the model were obtained from 4380 women enrolled in the GC-HBOC. RESULTS Compared with the no test strategy, genetic testing with subsequent surgical and non-surgical treatment options provided to women with deleterious BRCA 1 or 2 mutations resulted in additional costs of \text€7256 and additional QALYs of 0,43 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of \text€17,027 per QALY; cost per LYG: \text€22,318). The results were robust in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION The provision of genetic testing to high-risk women with a BRCA1 and two mutation probability of ≥ 10% based on the individual family cancer history appears to be a cost-effective option for the SHI.

Authors: Dirk Müller, Marion Danner, Rita Schmutzler, Christoph Engel, Kirsten Wassermann, Björn Stollenwerk, Stephanie Stock, Kerstin Rhiem

Date Published: 1st Jul 2019

Publication Type: Journal article

Human Diseases: hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome

BRIP1 loss-of-function mutations confer high risk for familial ovarian cancer, but not familial breast cancer
German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND Germline mutations in the BRIP1 gene have been described as conferring a moderate risk for ovarian cancer (OC), while the role of BRIP1 in breast cancer (BC) pathogenesis remains controversial. …. METHODS To assess the role of deleterious BRIP1 germline mutations in BC/OC predisposition, 6341 well-characterized index patients with BC, 706 index patients with OC, and 2189 geographically matched female controls were screened for loss-of-function (LoF) mutations and potentially damaging missense variants. All index patients met the inclusion criteria of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer for germline testing and tested negative for pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants. RESULTS BRIP1 LoF mutations confer a high OC risk in familial index patients (odds ratio (OR) = 20.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 12.02-36.57, P \textless 0.0001) and in the subgroup of index patients with late-onset OC (OR = 29.91, 95% CI = 14.99-59.66, P \textless 0.0001). No significant association of BRIP1 LoF mutations with familial BC was observed (OR = 1.81 95% CI = 1.00-3.30, P = 0.0623). In the subgroup of familial BC index patients without a family history of OC there was also no apparent association (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.70-2.90, P = 0.3030). In 1027 familial BC index patients with a family history of OC, the BRIP1 mutation prevalence was significantly higher than that observed in controls (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 1.43-9.01; P = 0.0168). Based on the negative association between BRIP1 LoF mutations and familial BC in the absence of an OC family history, we conclude that the elevated mutation prevalence in the latter cohort was driven by the occurrence of OC in these families. Compared with controls, predicted damaging rare missense variants were significantly more prevalent in OC (P = 0.0014) but not in BC (P = 0.0693) patients. CONCLUSIONS To avoid ambiguous results, studies aimed at assessing the impact of candidate predisposition gene mutations on BC risk might differentiate between BC index patients with an OC family history and those without. In familial cases, we suggest that BRIP1 is a high-risk gene for late-onset OC but not a BC predisposition gene, though minor effects cannot be excluded.

Authors: Nana Weber-Lassalle, Jan Hauke, Juliane Ramser, Lisa Richters, Eva Groß, Britta Blümcke, Andrea Gehrig, Anne-Karin Kahlert, Clemens R. Müller, Karl Hackmann, Ellen Honisch, Konstantin Weber-Lassalle, Dieter Niederacher, Julika Borde, Holger Thiele, Corinna Ernst, Janine Altmüller, Guido Neidhardt, Peter Nürnberg, Kristina Klaschik, Christopher Schroeder, Konrad Platzer, Alexander E. Volk, Shan Wang-Gohrke, Walter Just, Bernd Auber, Christian Kubisch, Gunnar Schmidt, Judit Horvath, Barbara Wappenschmidt, Christoph Engel, Norbert Arnold, Bernd Dworniczak, Kerstin Rhiem, Alfons Meindl, Rita K. Schmutzler, Eric Hahnen

Date Published: 1st Dec 2018

Publication Type: Journal article

Human Diseases: hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome

Cost-effectiveness of different strategies to prevent breast and ovarian cancer in German women with a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation
German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Abstract (Expand)

BACKGROUND Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are at increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer. This economic modeling study evaluated different preventive interventions for 30-year-old …d women with a confirmed BRCA (1 or 2) mutation. METHODS A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and benefits [i.e., quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years gained (LYG)] associated with prophylactic bilateral mastectomy (BM), prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO), BM plus BSO, BM plus BSO at age 40, and intensified surveillance. Relevant input data was obtained from a large German database including 5902 women with BRCA 1 or 2, and from the literature. The analysis was performed from the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) perspective. In order to assess the robustness of the results, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS With costs of \text€29,434 and a gain in QALYs of 17.7 (LYG 19.9), BM plus BSO at age 30 was less expensive and more effective than the other strategies, followed by BM plus BSO at age 40. Women who were offered the surveillance strategy had the highest costs at the lowest gain in QALYs/LYS. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of cost-saving was 57% for BM plus BSO. At a WTP of 10,000 \text€ per QALY, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 80%. CONCLUSIONS From the SHI perspective, undergoing BM plus immediate BSO should be recommended to BRCA 1 or 2 mutation carriers due to its favorable comparative cost-effectiveness.

Authors: Dirk Müller, Marion Danner, Kerstin Rhiem, Björn Stollenwerk, Christoph Engel, Linda Rasche, Lisa Borsi, Rita Schmutzler, Stephanie Stock

Date Published: 1st Apr 2018

Publication Type: Journal article

Human Diseases: hereditary breast ovarian cancer syndrome

Navigate

Leipzig Health Atlas

The Leipzig Health Atlas is an alliance of medical ontologists, medical systems biologists and clinical trials groups to design and implement a multi-functional and quality-assured atlas. It provides models, data and metadata on specific use cases from medical research fields.

Registered Repository

re3data.org Badge
Powered by
 (v.1.11.master)
Health Atlas | Funding and Programmes | Credits | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | Imprint
Copyright © 2008 - 2020 The University of Manchester and HITS gGmbH
Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig