International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

International survey on invasive lobular breast cancer identifies priority research questions

There is growing awareness of the unique etiology, biology, and clinical presentation of invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC), but additional research is needed to ensure translation of findings into management and treatment guidelines. We conducted a survey with input from breast cancer physicians, laboratory-based researchers, and patients to analyze the current understanding of ILC, and identify consensus research questions. 1774 participants from 66 countries respondents self-identified as clinicians (N = 413), researchers (N = 376), and breast cancer patients and advocates (N = 1120), with some belonging to more than one category. The majority of physicians reported being very/extremely (41%) to moderately (42%) confident in describing the differences between ILC and invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST). Knowledge of histology was seen as important (73%) and as affecting treatment decisions (51%), and most agreed that refining treatment guidelines would be valuable (76%). 85% of clinicians have never powered a clinical trial to allow subset analysis for histological subtypes, but the majority would consider it, and would participate in an ILC clinical trials consortium. The majority of laboratory researchers, reported being and very/extremely (48%) to moderately (29%) confident in describing differences between ILC and NST. They reported that ILCs are inadequately presented in large genomic data sets, and that ILC models are insufficient. The majority have adequate access to tissue or blood from patients with ILC. The majority of patients and advocates (52%) thought that their health care providers did not sufficiently explain the unique features of ILC. They identified improvement of ILC screening/early detection, and identification of better imaging tools as top research priorities. In contrast, both researchers and clinicians identified understanding of endocrine resistance and identifying novel drugs that can be tested in clinical trials as top research priority. In summary, we have gathered information from an international community of physicians, researchers, and patients/advocates that we expect will lay the foundation for a community-informed collaborative research agenda, with the goal of improving management and personalizing treatment for patients with ILC

Qualitative Impact Assessment of Land Management Interventions on Ecosystem Services (“QEIA”). Report-1: Executive Summary: QEIA Evidence Review & Integrated Assessment

The focus of this project was to provide an expert-led, rapid qualitative assessment of land management interventions on Ecosystem Services (ES) proposed for inclusion in Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. This involved a review of the current evidence base for 741 land management actions on 33 Ecosystem Services and 53 Ecosystem Service indicators by ten teams involving 45 experts drawn from the independent research community in a consistent series of Evidence Reviews covering the broad topics of: • Air quality • Greenhouse gas emissions • Soils • Water management • Biodiversity: croplands • Biodiversity: improved grassland • Biodiversity: semi-natural habitats • Biodiversity: integrated systems-based actions • Carbon sequestration • Cultural services (including recreation, geodiversity and regulatory services). It should be noted that this piece of work is just one element of the wider underpinning work Defra has commissioned to support the development of the ELM schemes

Qualitative impact assessment of land management interventions on Ecosystem Services (‘QEIA’). Report-2: Integrated Assessment

The focus of this project was to provide an expert-led, rapid qualitative assessment of land management interventions on Ecosystem Services (ES) proposed for inclusion in Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes. This involved a review of the current evidence base for 741 land management actions on 33 Ecosystem Services and 53 Ecosystem Service indicators by ten expert teams drawn from the independent research community in a consistent series of ten Evidence Reviews covering the broad topics of; • Air quality • Greenhouse gas emissions • Soils • Water management • Biodiversity: croplands • Biodiversity: improved grassland • Biodiversity: semi-natural habitats • Biodiversity: integrated systems-based actions • Carbon sequestration • Cultural services (including recreation, geodiversity and regulatory services) These reviews were undertaken rapidly at Defra’s request by ten teams involving 45 experts who together captured more than 2,400 individual sources of evidence. This was followed by the Integrated Assessment (IA) reported here to provide a more accessible summary of these evidence reviews with a focus on capturing the actions with the greatest potential magnitude of change for the intended ES, and their potential co-benefits and trade-offs for the other ES