Disease Burden, Risk Factors, and Temporal Trends in Breast Cancer in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Global Study

Introduction: Breast cancer poses significant health risks to women and strains healthcare systems extensively. In low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), limited resources and inadequate healthcare infrastructures further exacerbate the challenges of breast cancer prevention, treatment, and awareness. Methods: We examined the prevalence, risk factors, and trends of breast cancer in LMICs. Data on disability‐adjusted life years (DALYs) and breast cancer risk factors were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) databases for 203 countries or territories from 1990 to 2019. LMIC DALY rates were examined using joinpoint regression analysis. Results: Among the income groups, the lower middle‐income category had the highest DALYs value, with 1787 years per 100,000 people. LMICs collectively accounted for 74% of the global burden of DALYs lost due to breast cancer in 2019. However, it remained relatively consistent in lower middle income countries (LMCs). In LMCs, the risk associated with metabolic syndromes was higher compared to that with behavioral factors alone. For the past three decades, breast cancer incidences increased significantly in LMCs (average annual percent change [AAPC]: 1.212, confidence intervals [CI]: 1.51–1.87, p < 0.001), upper middle income countries (AAPC: 1.701, CI: 1.12–1.48, p < 0.001), and low‐income countries (AAPC: 1.002, CI: 1.57–1.68, p < 0.001). Conclusion: This research shows how breast cancer in LMICs is aggravated by low resources and healthcare infrastructure. To effectively combat breast cancer in these areas, future strategies must prioritize improvements in healthcare infrastructure, awareness campaigns, and early detection mechanisms

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field