RESUMO
The world is currently in the midst of a global food crisis brought about and exacerbated by a series of mutually reinforcing shocks to food systems This study investigated the resilience of food systems in six Asian countries (Bangladesh, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Pakistan, Philippines, and Sri Lanka) amidst the global 'polycrisis' caused by COVID-19, geopolitical conflicts, and climate change. Trend analyses were performed for 19 indicators sourced from global databases and World Food Programme national data, representing the four domains of food system resilience: exposure to shocks; resilience capacities and agro- and food diversity, resilience responses and strategies; and long-term resilience outcomes. The analysis revealed that all six countries experienced the effects of the 'polycrisis', leading to diverse impacts on exchange rates, with Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Lao PDR facing significant currency depreciation. While most countries increased crop production and decreased food imports during the crisis, government economic support during the pandemic varied widely. Resilience outcomes, including national food price inflation and the proportion of populations facing food insecurity, witnessed upward variations. Overall, countries with higher resilience capacities at the start of the 'polycrisis' showed less severe long-term resilience outcomes. Our findings highlight the varied challenges and resilience capacities across each country, influenced by a complex interplay of economic, political, agricultural, and food affordability factors crucial for determining long-term resilience in their food systems. Recommendations for future research include focusing on resilience assessment in food systems, integrating climate change adaptation measures, and developing early intervention strategies.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and risk of developing ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS after treatment, and stage and subtype of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Multinational, pooled cohort study. SETTING: Four large international cohorts. PARTICIPANTS: Patient level data on 47 695 women with a diagnosis of pure, primary DCIS between 1999 and 2017 in the Netherlands, UK, and US who underwent surgery, either breast conserving or mastectomy, often followed by radiotherapy or endocrine treatment, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS estimated in relation to DCIS size and margin status, and adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses with multiple imputed data RESULTS: The 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 3.2%. In women who underwent breast conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy, only adjusted risks for ipsilateral DCIS were significantly increased for larger DCIS (20-49 mm) compared with DCIS <20 mm (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.72). Risks for both ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS were significantly higher with involved compared with clear margins (invasive breast cancer 1.40, 1.07 to 1.83; DCIS 1.39, 1.04 to 1.87). Use of adjuvant endocrine treatment was not significantly associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to treatment with breast conserving surgery only (0.86, 0.62 to 1.21). In women who received breast conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy, higher DCIS grade was not significantly associated with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer, only with a higher risk of ipsilateral DCIS (grade 1: 1.42, 1.08 to 1.87; grade 3: 2.17, 1.66 to 2.83). Higher age at diagnosis was associated with lower risk (per year) of ipsilateral DCIS (0.98, 0.97 to 0.99) but not ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (1.00, 0.99 to 1.00). Women with large DCIS (≥50 mm) more often developed stage III and IV ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to women with DCIS <20 mm. No such association was found between involved margins and higher stage of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Associations between larger DCIS and hormone receptor negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and involved margins and hormone receptor negative ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were found. CONCLUSIONS: The association of DCIS size and margin status with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS was small. When these two factors were added to other known risk factors in multivariable models, clinicopathological risk factors alone were found to be limited in discriminating between low and high risk DCIS.
