The scientific literature on coralligenous habitat and fishing impacts

Among marine habitats, the coralligenous represents one of the most important biodiversity hotspots, also playing an important role in the carbon cycle. Coralligenous is a biogenic habitat of the circalittoral zone formed by calcareous structures built by crustose coralline algae and other assemblages of calcifying organisms. Due to its structural complexity, it is also considered one of the most vulnerable marine habitats, very sensitive to environmental changes, such as climate change, and to other anthropogenic impacts such as fishing activities. Trawling is the most harmful fishing method that is causing the degradation of large areas of coralligenous reef concretions. Small-scale and sport fishing can also cause damage to the most sensitive organisms of the coralligenous habitat that can be damaged or removed by fishing gear, both during the fishing activity and in the case of the involuntary abandonment of stranded or damaged fishing nets, also known as “ghost nets”. In this study, the global scientific literature on coralligenous habitat was explored, with a particular focus on human impacts and fishing activities. The analysis was carried out using the VOSviewer software, generating network maps based on literature data retrieved from the Scopus database. The results show that the scientific literature is mainly concentrated in Italy, proving the important contribution provided by the Italian research on the topic. The results also highlight a research gap in the application of environmental accounting methods to quantify and value natural capital and ecosystem services associated to the coralligenous habitat, and their loss due to human impacts

Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): Interim results

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, ultrasonography (US), and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for screening women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer and report interim results, with pathologic findings as standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board of each center approved the research; informed written consent was obtained. CBE, mammography, US, and MR imaging were performed for yearly screening of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, or women enrolled because of a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer (three or more events in first- or second-degree relatives in either maternal or paternal line; these included breast cancer in women younger than 60 years, ovarian cancer at any age, and male breast cancer at any age). RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight women (mean age, 46 years +/- 12 [standard deviation]) were enrolled. Breast cancer was found in 11 of 278 women at first round and seven of 99 at second round (14 invasive, four intraductal; eight were <or=10 mm in diameter). Detection rate per year was 4.8% (18 of 377) overall; 4.3% (11 of 258) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers versus 5.9% (seven of 119) in women enrolled because of strong family history; and 5.3% (nine of 169) in women with previous personal breast and/or ovarian cancer versus 4.3% (nine of 208) in those without. In six (33%) of 18 patients, cancer was detected only with MR imaging. Sensitivity was as follows: CBE, 50% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29%, 71%); mammography, 59% (95% CI: 36%, 78%); US, 65% (95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 94% (95% CI: 82%, 99%). Positive predictive value was as follows: CBE, 82% (95% CI: 52%, 95%); mammography, 77% (95% CI: 50%, 92%); US, 65% (95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 63% (95% CI: 43%, 79%). CONCLUSION: Addition of MR imaging to the screening regimen for high-risk women may enable detection of otherwise unsuspected breast cancers