Clinical practice guidelines for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing

BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene pathogenic variants account for most hereditary breast cancer and are increasingly used to determine eligibility for PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy of BRCA-related cancer. Because issues of BRCA testing in clinical practice now overlap with both preventive and therapeutic management, updated and comprehensive practice guidelines for BRCA genotyping are needed. The integrative recommendations for BRCA testing presented here aim to (1) identify individuals who may benefit from genetic counselling and risk-reducing strategies; (2) update germline and tumour-testing indications for PARPi-approved therapies; (3) provide testing recommendations for personalised management of early and metastatic breast cancer; and (4) address the issues of rapid process and tumour analysis. An international group of experts, including geneticists, medical and surgical oncologists, pathologists, ethicists and patient representatives, was commissioned by the French Society of Predictive and Personalised Medicine (SFMPP). The group followed a methodology based on specific formal guidelines development, including (1) evaluating the likelihood of BRCAm from a combined systematic review of the literature, risk assessment models and expert quotations, and (2) therapeutic values of BRCAm status for PARPi therapy in BRCA-related cancer and for management of early and advanced breast cancer. These international guidelines may help clinicians comprehensively update and standardise BRCA testing practices

Impact des discours nutritionnels sur les comportements alimentaires : une approche socio-anthropologique qualitative auprès de groupes « ciblés »

Rapport réalisé pour L'institut National de Prévention et d'Education pour la santé (INPES), Université de Tours VST/Citeres/ IEHCA avec Ch. Crenn, M. Duboys de Labarre, F. Précigout, I.Teschouères sous la direction de J.P. Corbeau, 171 p

The economic, environmental and social performance of European certified food

To identify whether EU certified food – here organic and geographical indications – is more sustainable than a conventional reference, we developed 25 indicators covering the three sustainability pillars. Original data was collected on 52 products at farm, processing and retail levels, allowing the estimation of circa 2000 indicator values. Most strikingly, we show that, in our sample, certified food outperforms its non-certified reference on most economic and social indicators. On major environmental indicators – carbon and water footprint – their performance is similar. Although certified food is 61% more expensive, the extra-performance per euro is similar to classical policy interventions to improve diet sustainability such as subsidies or taxes. Cumulatively, our findings legitimate the recent initiatives by standards to cover broader sustainability aspects