Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 provides an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence for risk factor exposure and the attributable burden of disease. By providing national and subnational assessments spanning the past 25 years, this study can inform debates on the importance of addressing risks in context. METHODS: We used the comparative risk assessment framework developed for previous iterations of the Global Burden of Disease Study to estimate attributable deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and trends in exposure by age group, sex, year, and geography for 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks from 1990 to 2015. This study included 388 risk-outcome pairs that met World Cancer Research Fund-defined criteria for convincing or probable evidence. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from randomised controlled trials, cohorts, pooled cohorts, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. We developed a metric that allows comparisons of exposure across risk factors-the summary exposure value. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk level, we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We decomposed trends in attributable burden into contributions from population growth, population age structure, risk exposure, and risk-deleted cause-specific DALY rates. We characterised risk exposure in relation to a Socio-demographic Index (SDI). FINDINGS: Between 1990 and 2015, global exposure to unsafe sanitation, household air pollution, childhood underweight, childhood stunting, and smoking each decreased by more than 25%. Global exposure for several occupational risks, high body-mass index (BMI), and drug use increased by more than 25% over the same period. All risks jointly evaluated in 2015 accounted for 57·8% (95% CI 56·6-58·8) of global deaths and 41·2% (39·8-42·8) of DALYs. In 2015, the ten largest contributors to global DALYs among Level 3 risks were high systolic blood pressure (211·8 million [192·7 million to 231·1 million] global DALYs), smoking (148·6 million [134·2 million to 163·1 million]), high fasting plasma glucose (143·1 million [125·1 million to 163·5 million]), high BMI (120·1 million [83·8 million to 158·4 million]), childhood undernutrition (113·3 million [103·9 million to 123·4 million]), ambient particulate matter (103·1 million [90·8 million to 115·1 million]), high total cholesterol (88·7 million [74·6 million to 105·7 million]), household air pollution (85·6 million [66·7 million to 106·1 million]), alcohol use (85·0 million [77·2 million to 93·0 million]), and diets high in sodium (83·0 million [49·3 million to 127·5 million]). From 1990 to 2015, attributable DALYs declined for micronutrient deficiencies, childhood undernutrition, unsafe sanitation and water, and household air pollution; reductions in risk-deleted DALY rates rather than reductions in exposure drove these declines. Rising exposure contributed to notable increases in attributable DALYs from high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, occupational carcinogens, and drug use. Environmental risks and childhood undernutrition declined steadily with SDI; low physical activity, high BMI, and high fasting plasma glucose increased with SDI. In 119 countries, metabolic risks, such as high BMI and fasting plasma glucose, contributed the most attributable DALYs in 2015. Regionally, smoking still ranked among the leading five risk factors for attributable DALYs in 109 countries; childhood underweight and unsafe sex remained primary drivers of early death and disability in much of sub-Saharan Africa. INTERPRETATION: Declines in some key environmental risks have contributed to declines in critical infectious diseases. Some risks appear to be invariant to SDI. Increasing risks, including high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, drug use, and some occupational exposures, contribute to rising burden from some conditions, but also provide opportunities for intervention. Some highly preventable risks, such as smoking, remain major causes of attributable DALYs, even as exposure is declining. Public policy makers need to pay attention to the risks that are increasingly major contributors to global burden. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

IMPORTANCE: Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Current estimates on the burden of cancer are needed for cancer control planning. OBJECTIVE: To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 32 cancers in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2015. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Cancer mortality was estimated using vital registration system data, cancer registry incidence data (transformed to mortality estimates using separately estimated mortality to incidence [MI] ratios), and verbal autopsy data. Cancer incidence was calculated by dividing mortality estimates through the modeled MI ratios. To calculate cancer prevalence, MI ratios were used to model survival. To calculate YLDs, prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights. The YLLs were estimated by multiplying age-specific cancer deaths by the reference life expectancy. DALYs were estimated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. A sociodemographic index (SDI) was created for each location based on income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. Countries were categorized by SDI quintiles to summarize results. FINDINGS: In 2015, there were 17.5 million cancer cases worldwide and 8.7 million deaths. Between 2005 and 2015, cancer cases increased by 33%, with population aging contributing 16%, population growth 13%, and changes in age-specific rates contributing 4%. For men, the most common cancer globally was prostate cancer (1.6 million cases). Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer was the leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs in men (1.2 million deaths and 25.9 million DALYs). For women, the most common cancer was breast cancer (2.4 million cases). Breast cancer was also the leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs for women (523 000 deaths and 15.1 million DALYs). Overall, cancer caused 208.3 million DALYs worldwide in 2015 for both sexes combined. Between 2005 and 2015, age-standardized incidence rates for all cancers combined increased in 174 of 195 countries or territories. Age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) for all cancers combined decreased within that timeframe in 140 of 195 countries or territories. Countries with an increase in the ASDR due to all cancers were largely located on the African continent. Of all cancers, deaths between 2005 and 2015 decreased significantly for Hodgkin lymphoma (-6.1% [95% uncertainty interval (UI), -10.6% to -1.3%]). The number of deaths also decreased for esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, and chronic myeloid leukemia, although these results were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: As part of the epidemiological transition, cancer incidence is expected to increase in the future, further straining limited health care resources. Appropriate allocation of resources for cancer prevention, early diagnosis, and curative and palliative care requires detailed knowledge of the local burden of cancer. The GBD 2015 study results demonstrate that progress is possible in the war against cancer. However, the major findings also highlight an unmet need for cancer prevention efforts, including tobacco control, vaccination, and the promotion of physical activity and a healthy diet.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

BACKGROUND: The burden of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remains unclear in many regions of the world. OBJECTIVES: The GBD (Global Burden of Disease) 2015 study integrated data on disease incidence, prevalence, and mortality to produce consistent, up-to-date estimates for cardiovascular burden. METHODS: CVD mortality was estimated from vital registration and verbal autopsy data. CVD prevalence was estimated using modeling software and data from health surveys, prospective cohorts, health system administrative data, and registries. Years lived with disability (YLD) were estimated by multiplying prevalence by disability weights. Years of life lost (YLL) were estimated by multiplying age-specific CVD deaths by a reference life expectancy. A sociodemographic index (SDI) was created for each location based on income per capita, educational attainment, and fertility. RESULTS: In 2015, there were an estimated 422.7 million cases of CVD (95% uncertainty interval: 415.53 to 427.87 million cases) and 17.92 million CVD deaths (95% uncertainty interval: 17.59 to 18.28 million CVD deaths). Declines in the age-standardized CVD death rate occurred between 1990 and 2015 in all high-income and some middle-income countries. Ischemic heart disease was the leading cause of CVD health lost globally, as well as in each world region, followed by stroke. As SDI increased beyond 0.25, the highest CVD mortality shifted from women to men. CVD mortality decreased sharply for both sexes in countries with an SDI >0.75. CONCLUSIONS: CVDs remain a major cause of health loss for all regions of the world. Sociodemographic change over the past 25 years has been associated with dramatic declines in CVD in regions with very high SDI, but only a gradual decrease or no change in most regions. Future updates of the GBD study can be used to guide policymakers who are focused on reducing the overall burden of noncommunicable disease and achieving specific global health targets for CVD.

<h3>Importance</h3> Cancer and other noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are now widely recognized as a threat to global development. The latest United Nations high-level meeting on NCDs reaffirmed this observation and also highlighted the slow progress in meeting the 2011 Political Declaration on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases and the third Sustainable Development Goal. Lack of situational analyses, priority setting, and budgeting have been identified as major obstacles in achieving these goals. All of these have in common that they require information on the local cancer epidemiology. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study is uniquely poised to provide these crucial data. <h3>Objective</h3> To describe cancer burden for 29 cancer groups in 195 countries from 1990 through 2017 to provide data needed for cancer control planning. <h3>Evidence Review</h3> We used the GBD study estimation methods to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs). Results are presented at the national level as well as by Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income, educational attainment, and total fertility rate. We also analyzed the influence of the epidemiological vs the demographic transition on cancer incidence. <h3>Findings</h3> In 2017, there were 24.5 million incident cancer cases worldwide (16.8 million without nonmelanoma skin cancer [NMSC]) and 9.6 million cancer deaths. The majority of cancer DALYs came from years of life lost (97%), and only 3% came from years lived with disability. The odds of developing cancer were the lowest in the low SDI quintile (1 in 7) and the highest in the high SDI quintile (1 in 2) for both sexes. In 2017, the most common incident cancers in men were NMSC (4.3 million incident cases); tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer (1.5 million incident cases); and prostate cancer (1.3 million incident cases). The most common causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for men were TBL cancer (1.3 million deaths and 28.4 million DALYs), liver cancer (572 000 deaths and 15.2 million DALYs), and stomach cancer (542 000 deaths and 12.2 million DALYs). For women in 2017, the most common incident cancers were NMSC (3.3 million incident cases), breast cancer (1.9 million incident cases), and colorectal cancer (819 000 incident cases). The leading causes of cancer deaths and DALYs for women were breast cancer (601 000 deaths and 17.4 million DALYs), TBL cancer (596 000 deaths and 12.6 million DALYs), and colorectal cancer (414 000 deaths and 8.3 million DALYs). <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> The national epidemiological profiles of cancer burden in the GBD study show large heterogeneities, which are a reflection of different exposures to risk factors, economic settings, lifestyles, and access to care and screening. The GBD study can be used by policy makers and other stakeholders to develop and improve national and local cancer control in order to achieve the global targets and improve equity in cancer care.

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.

There is great geographical variation in the distribution of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with the majority of all cases worldwide found in the Asia-Pacific region, where HCC is one of the leading public health problems. Since the "Toward Revision of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) HCC Guidelines" meeting held at the 25th annual conference of the APASL in Tokyo, the newest guidelines for the treatment of HCC published by the APASL has been discussed. This latest guidelines recommend evidence-based management of HCC and are considered suitable for universal use in the Asia-Pacific region, which has a diversity of medical environments.

IMPORTANCE: Cerebral amyloid-β aggregation is an early pathological event in Alzheimer disease (AD), starting decades before dementia onset. Estimates of the prevalence of amyloid pathology in persons without dementia are needed to understand the development of AD and to design prevention studies. OBJECTIVE: To use individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of amyloid pathology as measured with biomarkers in participants with normal cognition, subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). DATA SOURCES: Relevant biomarker studies identified by searching studies published before April 2015 using the MEDLINE and Web of Science databases and through personal communication with investigators. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they provided individual participant data for participants without dementia and used an a priori defined cutoff for amyloid positivity. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Individual records were provided for 2914 participants with normal cognition, 697 with SCI, and 3972 with MCI aged 18 to 100 years from 55 studies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence of amyloid pathology on positron emission tomography or in cerebrospinal fluid according to AD risk factors (age, apolipoprotein E [APOE] genotype, sex, and education) estimated by generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: The prevalence of amyloid pathology increased from age 50 to 90 years from 10% (95% CI, 8%-13%) to 44% (95% CI, 37%-51%) among participants with normal cognition; from 12% (95% CI, 8%-18%) to 43% (95% CI, 32%-55%) among patients with SCI; and from 27% (95% CI, 23%-32%) to 71% (95% CI, 66%-76%) among patients with MCI. APOE-ε4 carriers had 2 to 3 times higher prevalence estimates than noncarriers. The age at which 15% of the participants with normal cognition were amyloid positive was approximately 40 years for APOE ε4ε4 carriers, 50 years for ε2ε4 carriers, 55 years for ε3ε4 carriers, 65 years for ε3ε3 carriers, and 95 years for ε2ε3 carriers. Amyloid positivity was more common in highly educated participants but not associated with sex or biomarker modality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among persons without dementia, the prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology as determined by positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid findings was associated with age, APOE genotype, and presence of cognitive impairment. These findings suggest a 20- to 30-year interval between first development of amyloid positivity and onset of dementia.

Importance: The increasing burden due to cancer and other noncommunicable diseases poses a threat to human development, which has resulted in global political commitments reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Action Plan on Non-Communicable Diseases. To determine if these commitments have resulted in improved cancer control, quantitative assessments of the cancer burden are required. Objective: To assess the burden for 29 cancer groups over time to provide a framework for policy discussion, resource allocation, and research focus. Evidence Review: Cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were evaluated for 195 countries and territories by age and sex using the Global Burden of Disease study estimation methods. Levels and trends were analyzed over time, as well as by the Sociodemographic Index (SDI). Changes in incident cases were categorized by changes due to epidemiological vs demographic transition. Findings: In 2016, there were 17.2 million cancer cases worldwide and 8.9 million deaths. Cancer cases increased by 28% between 2006 and 2016. The smallest increase was seen in high SDI countries. Globally, population aging contributed 17%; population growth, 12%; and changes in age-specific rates, -1% to this change. The most common incident cancer globally for men was prostate cancer (1.4 million cases). The leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer (1.2 million deaths and 25.4 million DALYs). For women, the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths and DALYs was breast cancer (1.7 million incident cases, 535 000 deaths, and 14.9 million DALYs). In 2016, cancer caused 213.2 million DALYs globally for both sexes combined. Between 2006 and 2016, the average annual age-standardized incidence rates for all cancers combined increased in 130 of 195 countries or territories, and the average annual age-standardized death rates decreased within that timeframe in 143 of 195 countries or territories. Conclusions and Relevance: Large disparities exist between countries in cancer incidence, deaths, and associated disability. Scaling up cancer prevention and ensuring universal access to cancer care are required for health equity and to fulfill the global commitments for noncommunicable disease and cancer control.

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) play a pivotal role in biological processes and continuous ROS production in normal cells is controlled by the appropriate regulation between the silver lining of low and high ROS concentration mediated effects. Interestingly, ROS also dynamically influences the tumor microenvironment and is known to initiate cancer angiogenesis, metastasis, and survival at different concentrations. At moderate concentration, ROS activates the cancer cell survival signaling cascade involving mitogen-activated protein kinase/extracellular signal-regulated protein kinases 1/2 (MAPK/ERK1/2), p38, c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and phosphoinositide-3-kinase/ protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt), which in turn activate the nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-κB), matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). At high concentrations, ROS can cause cancer cell apoptosis. Hence, it critically depends upon the ROS levels, to either augment tumorigenesis or lead to apoptosis. The major issue is targeting the dual actions of ROS effectively with respect to the concentration bias, which needs to be monitored carefully to impede tumor angiogenesis and metastasis for ROS to serve as potential therapeutic targets exogenously/endogenously. Overall, additional research is required to comprehend the potential of ROS as an effective anti-tumor modality and therapeutic target for treating malignancies.

RATIONALE: Limited data exist about the international burden of severe sepsis in critically ill children. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the global prevalence, therapies, and outcomes of severe sepsis in pediatric intensive care units to better inform interventional trials. METHODS: A point prevalence study was conducted on 5 days throughout 2013-2014 at 128 sites in 26 countries. Patients younger than 18 years of age with severe sepsis as defined by consensus criteria were included. Outcomes were severe sepsis point prevalence, therapies used, new or progressive multiorgan dysfunction, ventilator- and vasoactive-free days at Day 28, functional status, and mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 6,925 patients screened, 569 had severe sepsis (prevalence, 8.2%; 95% confidence interval, 7.6-8.9%). The patients' median age was 3.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.7-11.0) years. The most frequent sites of infection were respiratory (40%) and bloodstream (19%). Common therapies included mechanical ventilation (74% of patients), vasoactive infusions (55%), and corticosteroids (45%). Hospital mortality was 25% and did not differ by age or between developed and resource-limited countries. Median ventilator-free days were 16 (IQR, 0-25), and vasoactive-free days were 23 (IQR, 12-28). Sixty-seven percent of patients had multiorgan dysfunction at sepsis recognition, with 30% subsequently developing new or progressive multiorgan dysfunction. Among survivors, 17% developed at least moderate disability. Sample sizes needed to detect a 5-10% absolute risk reduction in outcomes within interventional trials are estimated between 165 and 1,471 [corrected] patients per group. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric severe sepsis remains a burdensome public health problem, with prevalence, morbidity, and mortality rates similar to those reported in critically ill adult populations. International clinical trials targeting children with severe sepsis are warranted.

BACKGROUND: Poorly defined cohorts and weak study designs have hampered cross-cultural comparisons of course and outcome in schizophrenia. AIMS: To describe long-term outcome in 18 diverse treated incidence and prevalence cohorts. To compare mortality, 15- and 25-year illness trajectory and the predictive strength of selected baseline and short-term course variables. METHODS: Historic prospective study. Standardised assessments of course and outcome. RESULTS: About 75% traced. About 50% of surviving cases had favourable outcomes, but there was marked heterogeneity across geographic centres. In regression models, early (2-year) course patterns were the strongest predictor of 15-year outcome, but recovery varied by location; 16% of early unremitting cases achieved late-phase recovery. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of treated incident cases of schizophrenia achieve favourable long-term outcome. Sociocultural conditions appear to modify long-term course. Early intervention programmes focused on social as well as pharmacological treatments may realise longer-term gains.

Lung cancer is the primary cause of mortality in the United States and around the globe. Therapeutic options for lung cancer treatment include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted drug therapy. Medical management is often associated with the development of treatment resistance leading to relapse. Immunotherapy is profoundly altering the approach to cancer treatment owing to its tolerable safety profile, sustained therapeutic response due to immunological memory generation, and effectiveness across a broad patient population. Different tumor-specific vaccination strategies are gaining ground in the treatment of lung cancer. Recent advances in adoptive cell therapy (CAR T, TCR, TIL), the associated clinical trials on lung cancer, and associated hurdles are discussed in this review. Recent trials on lung cancer patients (without a targetable oncogenic driver alteration) reveal significant and sustained responses when treated with programmed death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) checkpoint blockade immunotherapies. Accumulating evidence indicates that a loss of effective anti-tumor immunity is associated with lung tumor evolution. Therapeutic cancer vaccines combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) can achieve better therapeutic effects. To this end, the present article encompasses a detailed overview of the recent developments in the immunotherapeutic landscape in targeting small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Additionally, the review also explores the implication of nanomedicine in lung cancer immunotherapy as well as the combinatorial application of traditional therapy along with immunotherapy regimens. Finally, ongoing clinical trials, significant obstacles, and the future outlook of this treatment strategy are also highlighted to boost further research in the field.

Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis (CPA) is an uncommon and problematic pulmonary disease, complicating many other respiratory disorders, thought to affect ~240 000 people in Europe. The most common form of CPA is chronic cavitary pulmonary aspergillosis (CCPA), which untreated may progress to chronic fibrosing pulmonary aspergillosis. Less common manifestations include: Aspergillus nodule and single aspergilloma. All these entities are found in non-immunocompromised patients with prior or current lung disease. Subacute invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (formerly called chronic necrotising pulmonary aspergillosis) is a more rapidly progressive infection (<3 months) usually found in moderately immunocompromised patients, which should be managed as invasive aspergillosis. Few clinical guidelines have been previously proposed for either diagnosis or management of CPA. A group of experts convened to develop clinical, radiological and microbiological guidelines. The diagnosis of CPA requires a combination of characteristics: one or more cavities with or without a fungal ball present or nodules on thoracic imaging, direct evidence of Aspergillus infection (microscopy or culture from biopsy) or an immunological response to Aspergillus spp. and exclusion of alternative diagnoses, all present for at least 3 months. Aspergillus antibody (precipitins) is elevated in over 90% of patients. Surgical excision of simple aspergilloma is recommended, if technically possible, and preferably via video-assisted thoracic surgery technique. Long-term oral antifungal therapy is recommended for CCPA to improve overall health status and respiratory symptoms, arrest haemoptysis and prevent progression. Careful monitoring of azole serum concentrations, drug interactions and possible toxicities is recommended. Haemoptysis may be controlled with tranexamic acid and bronchial artery embolisation, rarely surgical resection, and may be a sign of therapeutic failure and/or antifungal resistance. Patients with single Aspergillus nodules only need antifungal therapy if not fully resected, but if multiple they may benefit from antifungal treatment, and require careful follow-up.

BACKGROUND: More than 80% of deaths from cardiovascular disease are estimated to occur in low-income and middle-income countries, but the reasons are unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 156,424 persons from 628 urban and rural communities in 17 countries (3 high-income, 10 middle-income, and 4 low-income countries) and assessed their cardiovascular risk using the INTERHEART Risk Score, a validated score for quantifying risk-factor burden without the use of laboratory testing (with higher scores indicating greater risk-factor burden). Participants were followed for incident cardiovascular disease and death for a mean of 4.1 years. RESULTS: The mean INTERHEART Risk Score was highest in high-income countries, intermediate in middle-income countries, and lowest in low-income countries (P<0.001). However, the rates of major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure) were lower in high-income countries than in middle- and low-income countries (3.99 events per 1000 person-years vs. 5.38 and 6.43 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; P<0.001). Case fatality rates were also lowest in high-income countries (6.5%, 15.9%, and 17.3% in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, respectively; P=0.01). Urban communities had a higher risk-factor burden than rural communities but lower rates of cardiovascular events (4.83 vs. 6.25 events per 1000 person-years, P<0.001) and case fatality rates (13.52% vs. 17.25%, P<0.001). The use of preventive medications and revascularization procedures was significantly more common in high-income countries than in middle- or low-income countries (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the risk-factor burden was lowest in low-income countries, the rates of major cardiovascular disease and death were substantially higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries. The high burden of risk factors in high-income countries may have been mitigated by better control of risk factors and more frequent use of proven pharmacologic therapies and revascularization. (Funded by the Population Health Research Institute and others.).

The publication of the GEC-ESTRO recommendations one decade ago was a significant step forward for reaching international consensus on adaptive target definition and dose reporting in image guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in locally advanced cervical cancer. Since then, IGABT has been spreading, particularly in Europe, North America and Asia, and the guidelines have proved their broad acceptance and applicability in clinical practice. However, a unified approach to volume contouring and reporting does not imply a unified administration of treatment, and currently both external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and IGABT are delivered using a large variety of techniques and prescription/fractionation schedules. With IGABT, local control is excellent in limited and well-responding tumours. The major challenges are currently loco-regional control in advanced tumours, treatment-related morbidity, and distant metastatic disease. Emerging evidence from the RetroEMBRACE and EMBRACE I studies has demonstrated that clinical outcome is related to dose prescription and technique. The next logical step is to demonstrate excellent clinical outcome with the most advanced EBRT and brachytherapy techniques based on an evidence-based prospective dose and volume prescription protocol. The EMBRACE II study is an interventional and observational multicentre study which aims to benchmark a high level of local, nodal and systemic control while limiting morbidity, using state of the art treatment including an advanced target volume selection and contouring protocol for EBRT and brachytherapy, a multi-parametric brachytherapy dose prescription protocol (clinical validation of dose constraints), and use of advanced EBRT (IMRT and IGRT) and brachytherapy (IC/IS) techniques (clinical validation). The study also incorporates translational research including imaging and tissue biomarkers.

Mucormycosis is an angio-invasive fungal infection, associated with high morbidity and mortality. A change in the epidemiology of mucormycosis has been observed in recent years with the rise in incidence, new causative agents and susceptible population. The rise has been perceived globally, but it is very high in the Asian continent. Though diabetes mellitus overshadow all other risk factors in Asia, post-tuberculosis and chronic renal failure have emerged as new risk groups. The rhino-cerebral form of mucormycosis is most commonly seen in patients with diabetes mellitus, whereas, pulmonary mucormycosis in patients with haematological malignancy and transplant recipients. In immunocompetent hosts, cutaneous mucormycosis is commonly seen following trauma. The intriguing clinical entity, isolated renal mucormycosis in immunocompetent patients is only reported from China and India. A new clinical entity, indolent mucormycosis in nasal sinuses, is recently recognized. The causative agents of mucormycosis vary across different geographic locations. Though Rhizopus arrhizus is the most common agent isolated worldwide, Apophysomyces variabilis is predominant in Asia and Lichtheimia species in Europe. The new causative agents, Rhizopus homothallicus, Mucor irregularis, and Thamnostylum lucknowense are reported from Asia. In conclusion, with the change in epidemiology of mucormycosis country-wise studies are warranted to estimate disease burden in different risk groups, analyse the clinical disease pattern and identify the new etiological agents.

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) is an immunological pulmonary disorder caused by hypersensitivity to Aspergillus fumigatus, manifesting with poorly controlled asthma, recurrent pulmonary infiltrates and bronchiectasis. There are estimated to be in excess of four million patients affected world-wide. The importance of recognizing ABPA relates to the improvement of patient symptoms, and delay in development or prevention of bronchiectasis, one manifestation of permanent lung damage in ABPA. Environmental factors may not be the only pathogenetic factors because not all asthmatics develop ABPA despite being exposed to the same environment. Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is probably a polygenic disorder, which does not remit completely once expressed, although long-term remissions do occur. In a genetically predisposed individual, inhaled conidia of A. fumigatus germinate into hyphae with release of antigens that activate the innate and adaptive immune responses (Th2 CD4(+) T cell responses) of the lung. The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology (ISHAM) has constituted a working group on ABPA complicating asthma (www.abpaworkinggroup.org), which convened an international conference to summarize the current state of knowledge, and formulate consensus-based guidelines for diagnosis and therapy. New diagnosis and staging criteria for ABPA are proposed. Although a small number of randomized controlled trials have been conducted, long-term management remains poorly studied. Primary therapy consists of oral corticosteroids to control exacerbations, itraconazole as a steroid-sparing agent and optimized asthma therapy. Uncertainties surround the prevention and management of bronchiectasis, chronic pulmonary aspergillosis and aspergilloma as complications, concurrent rhinosinusitis and environmental control. There is need for new oral antifungal agents and immunomodulatory therapy.

The first consensus report of the working party of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) set up in 2004 on acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) was published in 2009. With international groups volunteering to join, the “APASL ACLF Research Consortium (AARC)” was formed in 2012, which continued to collect prospective ACLF patient data. Based on the prospective data analysis of nearly 1400 patients, the AARC consensus was published in 2014. In the past nearly four-and-a-half years, the AARC database has been enriched to about 5200 cases by major hepatology centers across Asia. The data published during the interim period were carefully analyzed and areas of contention and new developments in the field of ACLF were prioritized in a systematic manner. The AARC database was also approached for answering some of the issues where published data were limited, such as liver failure grading, its impact on the ‘Golden Therapeutic Window’, extrahepatic organ dysfunction and failure, development of sepsis, distinctive features of acute decompensation from ACLF and pediatric ACLF and the issues were analyzed. These initiatives concluded in a two-day meeting in October 2018 at New Delhi with finalization of the new AARC consensus. Only those statements, which were based on evidence using the Grade System and were unanimously recommended, were accepted. Finalized statements were again circulated to all the experts and subsequently presented at the AARC investigators meeting at the AASLD in November 2018. The suggestions from the experts were used to revise and finalize the consensus. After detailed deliberations and data analysis, the original definition of ACLF was found to withstand the test of time and be able to identify a homogenous group of patients presenting with liver failure. New management options including the algorithms for the management of coagulation disorders, renal replacement therapy, sepsis, variceal bleed, antivirals and criteria for liver transplantation for ACLF patients were proposed. The final consensus statements along with the relevant background information and areas requiring future studies are presented here.

All over the world women are the predominant providers of informal care for family members with chronic medical conditions or disabilities, including the elderly and adults with mental illnesses. It has been suggested that there are several societal and cultural demands on women to adopt the role of a family-caregiver. Stress-coping theories propose that women are more likely to be exposed to caregiving stressors, and are likely to perceive, report and cope with these stressors differently from men. Many studies, which have examined gender differences among family-caregivers of people with mental illnesses, have concluded that women spend more time in providing care and carry out personal-care tasks more often than men. These studies have also found that women experience greater mental and physical strain, greater caregiver-burden, and higher levels of psychological distress while providing care. However, almost an equal number of studies have not found any differences between men and women on these aspects. This has led to the view that though there may be certain differences between male and female caregivers, most of these are small in magnitude and of doubtful clinical significance. Accordingly, caregiver-gender is thought to explain only a minor proportion of the variance in negative caregiving outcomes. A similar inconsistency characterizes the explanations provided for gender differences in caregiving such as role expectations, differences in stress, coping and social support, and response biases in reporting distress. Apart from the equivocal and inconsistent evidence, there are other problems in the literature on gender differences in caregiving. Most of the evidence has been derived from studies on caregivers of elderly people who either suffer from dementia or other physical conditions. Similar research on other mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or mood disorders is relatively scarce. With changing demographics and social norms men are increasingly assuming roles as caregivers. However, the experience of men while providing care has not been explored adequately. The impact of gender on caregiving outcomes may be mediated by several other variables including patient-related factors, socio-demographic variables, and effects of kinship status, culture and ethnicity, but these have seldom been considered in the research on gender differences. Finally, it is apparent that methodological variations in samples, designs and assessments between studies contribute a great deal to the observed gender differences. This review highlights all these issues and concludes that there is much need for further research in this area if the true nature of gender differences in family-caregiving of mental illnesses is to be discerned.