Search

Background/objectives: With breast cancer (BC) survival improving due to optimized therapy, enhancing quality of life has become increasingly important. Both diagnosis and treatment, with their potential side effects, pose risks to mental well-being. Our study aimed to analyze the incidence and potential risk factors for mental disorders in BC patients., Methods: This retrospective analysis used claims data from AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, including 11,553 BC patients diagnosed via ICD code C50 between 2010 and 2020 and 31,944 age-matched controls. Patients with mental disorders in the 12 months prior to diagnosis were excluded. Mental disorders were categorized into eight groups based on ICD codes: anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, adjustment disorder, dissociative disorder, hypochondriac disorder, affective disorder, mania, and other neuroses., Results: Mental disorders were significantly more common in BC patients than in controls (64.2% vs. 38.1%, p < 0.01, OR 2.91, 95%CI [2.79, 3.04]). In particular, hypochondriac, anxiety, affective, and adjustment disorders occurred significantly more often in BC patients. No differences were found for mania, bipolar disease, other neuroses, obsessive compulsive-, or dissociative disorders. Furthermore, endocrine therapy was associated with psychological comorbidities (OR 1.69, p < 0.001, 95%CI [1.53, 1.86]), while primarily metastasized patients (stage C) had a lower risk than adjuvant patients in stage A (OR 0.55, p < 0.0001, 95%CI [0.49, 0.61]). Regarding surgical treatment, mastectomy patients showed lower rates of mental illnesses (61.2%) than those with breast-conserving treatment (71.6%), or especially breast reconstruction (78.4%, p < 0.01). Breast reconstruction was also associated with more hypochondriac ( p < 0.01) and adjustment disorders ( p < 0.01)., Conclusions: So, BC patients experience significantly more mental disorders than controls, particularly when treated with endocrine therapy and breast reconstructive surgery.

Purpose: Breast cancer is a primary cause of cancer-related death among women worldwide. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is a cornerstone treatment for locally advanced, non-metastatic breast cancer. Achieving pathological complete response (pCR) is often used as a surrogate marker for long-term outcomes. This study examines the impact of obesity, defined by a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg/m 2 , on achieving pCR in patients with early stage breast cancer (eBC) undergoing NACT., Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with eBC treated with NACT at the University of Tübingen. The primary objective was to assess the impact of obesity on achieving pCR. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between pre-treatment BMI and pCR, adjusting for covariates such as age, tumor stage, grading, and chemotherapy intensity., Results: The study included 325 patients, with 24% classified as obese. While the univariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant impact of obesity on the odds ratio of achieving pCR, the multivariate analysis, accounting for covariates, demonstrated that obese patients had a significantly higher likelihood of achieving pCR., Conclusion: In this retrospective study, obesity significantly affected the likelihood of achieving pCR in patients with eBC cancer undergoing NACT after adjusting for covariates. While obesity is a known risk factor for breast cancer development and progression, its impact on the efficacy of NACT in terms of achieving pCR was positive in our study. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate in the literature, though the retrospective design and potential uncontrolled factors should be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Although adequate physical activity has been shown to be beneficial in early breast cancer, evidence in metastatic breast cancer is sparse and contradictory, which could be related to distinct effects of physical activity on the different molecular cancer subtypes. Therefore, we here evaluated the effect of physical activity on progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) in metastatic breast cancer, specifically looking at molecular subtypes., Methods: International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) questionnaires, filled out by patients enrolled in the prospective PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167; n = 1,270) were used to calculate metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes, which were subsequently categorized into low (n = 138), moderate (n = 995) or high IPAQ categories (n = 137). Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of IPAQ categories and its interaction with molecular subtypes on PFS and OS., Results: Patient and tumor characteristics were equally distributed across IPAQ categories. HER2pos, HRpos and TNBC were present in 23.1%, 65.7% and 11.2% of patients, respectively. IPAQ scores did not have an impact on PFS and OS in addition to established prognostic factors, either overall or in particular molecular subtypes (PFS: p = 0.33 and OS: p = 0.08, likelihood ratio test). Exploratory analyses showed higher overall survival rates for high IPAQ categories compared to low/moderate IPAQ categories in luminal B-like breast cancer., Conclusions: Self-reported physical activity using the IPAQ questionnaire did not significantly affect PFS or OS in patients suffering from metastatic breast cancer. Nevertheless, some hypothesis-generating differences between molecular subtypes could be observed, which may be interesting to evaluate further., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The monarchE and NATALEE trials demonstrated the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy in adjuvant breast cancer (BC) treatment. Patient selection, based on clinical characteristics, delineated those at high (monarchE) and high/intermediate recurrence risk (NATALEE). This study employed a historical patient cohort to describe the proportion and prognosis of patients eligible for adjuvant CDK4/6i trials., Methods: Between 2009 and 2011, 3529 patients were enrolled in the adjuvant PreFace clinical trial (NCT01908556). Eligibility criteria included postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HRpos) BC for whom a five-year upfront therapy with letrozole was indicated. Patients were categorized into prognostic groups according to monarchE and NATALEE inclusion criteria, and their invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed., Results: Among 2891 HRpos patients, 384 (13.3 %) met the primary monarchE inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 261) qualified due to having ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes. For NATALEE, 915 out of 2886 patients (31.7 %) met the eligibility criteria, with 126 patients (13.7 %) being node-negative. Patients from monarchE with ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes and NATALEE with stage III BC exhibited the poorest prognosis (3-year iDFS rate 0.87). Patients ineligible for the trials demonstrated prognoses similar to the most favorable patient groups within the eligibility criteria., Conclusion: Patient populations eligible for monarchE and NATALEE trials differed. Nearly a third of the postmenopausal HRpos population, previously under upfront letrozole treatment, met the NATALEE prognostic eligibility criteria. As certain eligible groups had a prognosis similar to non-eligible patients, it might be interesting to explore additional patient groups for CDK4/6i therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: P.A.F. reports grants from Biontech and Cepheid, personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Roche, Hexal, Agendia, Gilead. C.C.H. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and MSD, and travel grants from Daiichi-Sankyo. N.N. is an employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH. B.A. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Stemline, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, Eisai, Stemline, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Participated in the data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. S.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis and Roche. C.T. received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. H.-C.K. received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead and Zuellig, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Zuellig, and Stemline, participated in data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, SurgVision, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Amgen, Onkowissen, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Agendia, Lilly and owns stock of Theraclion SA. W.J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Celgene and Johnson&Johnson. A.S. reported grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, and Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. F.M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Eisai, Genomic Health, GSK, Immunomedics, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro. M.W.S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Mylan, Roche, Gedeon Richter, Carl Zeiss Meditec, travel support from Pfizer, Carl Zeiss Meditec. C.J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche. V.M. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, iMED Institut. Consultancy honoraria: Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Stemline. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, AstraZeneca. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead. C.R. received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca, travel expenses from the Swiss Society of Senology and the Swiss Society of Gynecology. P.D. received honoraria from MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, B. Braun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. T.N.F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, TEVA, Diachii Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD. All of the remaining authors have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (gBRCA1/2) are required for a PARP inhibitor therapy in patients with HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (aBC). However, little is known about the prognostic impact of gBRCA1/2 mutations in aBC patients treated with chemotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the frequencies and prognosis of germline and somatic BRCA1/2 mutations in HER2- aBC patients receiving the first chemotherapy in the advanced setting. Patients receiving their first chemotherapy for HER2- aBC were retrospectively selected from the prospective PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167). Genotyping of 26 cancer predisposition genes was performed with germline DNA of 471 patients and somatic tumor DNA of 94 patients. Mutation frequencies, progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) according to germline mutation status were assessed. gBRCA1/2 mutations were present in 23 patients (4.9%), and 33 patients (7.0%) had mutations in other cancer risk genes. Patients with a gBRCA1/2 mutation had a better OS compared to non-mutation carriers (HR: 0.38; 95%CI: 0.17-0.86). PFS comparison was not statistically significant. Mutations in other risk genes did not affect prognosis. Two somatic BRCA2 mutations were found in 94 patients without gBRCA1/2 mutations. Most frequently somatic mutated genes were TP53 (44.7%), CDH1 (10.6%) and PTEN (6.4%). In conclusion, aBC patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations had a more favorable prognosis under chemotherapy compared to non-mutation carriers. The mutation frequency of ~5% with gBRCA1/2 mutations together with improved outcome indicates that germline genotyping of all metastatic patients for whom a PARP inhibitor therapy is indicated should be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background With more effective therapies for patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC), therapy sequences are becoming increasingly important. However, some patients might drop out of the treatment sequence due to deterioration of their life status. Since little is known about attrition in the real-world setting, this study assessed attrition in the first three therapy lines using a real-world registry. Methods Patients with information available on the first three therapy lines were selected from the German PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167). Attrition was determined for each therapy line using competing risk analyses, with the start of the next therapy line or death as endpoints. Additionally, a simple attrition rate was calculated based on the proportion of patients who completed therapy but did not start the next therapy line. Results Competitive risk analyses were performed on 3988 1st line, 2651 2nd line and 1866 3rd line patients. The probabilities of not starting the next therapy line within 5 years after initiation of 1st, 2nd and 3rd line therapy were 30%, 24% and 24% respectively. Patients with HER2-positive disease had the highest risk for attrition, while patients with HRpos/HER2neg disease had the lowest risk. Attrition rates remained similar across molecular subgroups in the different therapy lines. Conclusion Attrition affects a large proportion of patients with aBC, which should be considered when planning novel therapy concepts that specifically address the sequencing of therapies. Taking attrition into account could help understand treatment effects resulting from sequential therapies and might help develop treatment strategies that specifically aim at maintaining quality of life., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest E. B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Celgene, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Merrimack, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Pfizer, Hexal, Amgen, and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management, or medical education activities. J. E. has received honoraria/travel support from Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Teva, and Tesaro, AstraZeneca, Daiichi, Seagen, Gilead, StemLine, ClinSol. P. A. F. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Celgene; his institution conducts research for Novartis. A. D. H. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Seagen, GSK, ExactScience, Riemser, Teva, Onkowissen, Gilead, Menarini Stemline, Pfizer, Amgen, Pierre Fabre and Eisai and travel support from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, GSK, Exact Science, Gilead, Menarini Stemline and Pfizer. C. H. has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Oncovis, Roche, and Pfizer. J. H. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, and Pfizer, and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. C. K. has received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD, Axios, and Riemser. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lily, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead and Menarini Stemline and owns stock of Theraclion SA. M. P. L. has received honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Agendia, Daiichi-Sankyo, Grünenthal, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, PharmaMar, Samantree, Endomag, and medac for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. V. M. Speaker honoraria: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, iMED Institut. Consultancy honoraria: Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Stemline. Institutional research support: Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, AstraZeneca. Travel grants: AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead P. H. has received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants, and research funding from Amgen, Novartis, Hexal and Pfizer. A. S. has received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, and promedicis GmbH. H. T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, and Pfizer, and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. M. W. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, MSD and Novartis. R. W. has received honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, APOGHEVA, Aristo, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Esteve, Exact Sciences, ilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PINK, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics /Seagen, Sidekick, Stemline, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, Viatris, Wiley, FOMF, Aurikamed, Clinsol, Pomme Med, medconcept, MCI, MediSeminar. F. A. T. has received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche. C. B. W. has received honoraria from Teva, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche D. L. has received honoraria from Amgen, Loreal, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Samsung, Celgene, Astra Zeneca, Teva and GSK H. H. received speaker honorar for: Novartis Pharma GmbH and LEO Pharma GmbH and Grant/Research support from: Novartis Pharma GmbH. M. U. has received honoraria for advisory boards and travel support, payed to the employer from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Clovis Oncology, and Seattle Genetics W. J. has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo L. L. M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Eisai for advisory boards, lectures and travel support. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, and AstraZeneca T. N. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Teva, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and MSD All remaining authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest = M. W. B., S. U., C. G., T. L., C. M., D. W., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).)

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality among women in Germany and worldwide. This retrospective claims data analysis utilizing data from AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, a major statutory German health insurance provider, aimed to construct and assess a real-world data breast cancer disease model. The study included 27,869 female breast cancer patients and 55,738 age-matched controls, analyzing data from 2010 to 2020. Three distinct breast cancer stages were analyzed: Stage A (early breast cancer without lymph node involvement), Stage B (early breast cancer with lymph node involvement), and Stage C (primary distant metastatic breast cancer). Tumor subtypes were estimated based on the prescription of antihormonal or HER2-targeted therapy. The study established that 77.9% of patients had HR+ breast cancer and 9.8% HER2+; HR+/HER2- was the most common subtype (70.9%). Overall survival (OS) analysis demonstrated significantly lower survival rates for stages B and C than for controls, with 5-year OS rates ranging from 79.3% for stage B to 35.4% for stage C. OS rates were further stratified by tumor subtype and stage, revealing varying prognoses. Distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) analysis showed higher recurrence rates in stage B than in stage A, with HR-/HER2- displaying the worst DRFS. This study, the first to model breast cancer subtypes, stages, and outcomes using German claims data, provides valuable insights into real-world breast cancer epidemiology and demonstrates that this breast cancer disease model has the potential to be representative of treatment outcomes.

Introduction: Adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) should include an aromatase inhibitor (AI). Especially patients with a high recurrence risk might benefit from an upfront therapy with an AI for a minimum of five years. Nevertheless, not much is known about the patient selection for this population in clinical practice. Therefore, this study analyzed the prognosis and patient characteristics of postmenopausal patients selected for a five-year upfront letrozole therapy., Patients and Methods: From 2009 to 2011, 3529 patients were enrolled into the adjuvant phase IV PreFace clinical trial (NCT01908556). Postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive BC patients, for whom an upfront five-year therapy with letrozole (2.5 mg/day) was indicated, were eligible. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and safety in relation to patient and tumor characteristics were assessed., Results: 3297 patients started letrozole therapy. The majority of patients (n = 1639, 57%) completed the five-year treatment. 34.5% of patients continued with endocrine therapy after the mandated five-year endocrine treatment. Five-year DFS rates were 89% (95% CI: 88-90%) and five-year OS rates were 95% (95% CI: 94-96%). In subgroup analyses, DFS rates were 83%, 84% and 78% for patients with node-positive disease, G3 tumor grading, and pT3 tumors respectively. The main adverse events (any grade) were pain and hot flushes (66.8% and 18.3% of patients)., Conclusions: The risk profile of postmenopausal BC patients selected for a five-year upfront letrozole therapy showed a moderate recurrence and death risk. However, in subgroups with unfavorable risk factors, prognosis warrants an improvement, which might be achieved with novel targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest P. G. received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. K. A. received speaker honoraria from Roche Pharma AG, Pfizer Pharma GmbH and AstraZeneca. C. C. H. received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead and MSD, and received travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo. B. A. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Stemline, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, Eisai, Stemline, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Participated in the data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. S. K. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis and Roche. C. T. received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Zuellig, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Zuellig, Stemline, participated in data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, SurgVision, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Amgen, Onkowissen, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Agendia, Lilly and owns stock of Theraclion SA. W. J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene and Johnson & Johnson. A. S. reported grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Cellgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, and Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. F. M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Eisai, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro. M. W. S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Mylan, Roche, Gedeon Richter, Carl Zeiss Meditec, travel support from Pfizer, Carl Zeiss Meditec. C. J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. E. B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, Braun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. T. N. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Teva, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD. P. A. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from Biontech, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from MSD, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from SeaGen, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Hexal, personal fees from Agendia, personal fees from Gilead. C.R. received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca, travel expenses from the Swiss Society of Senology and the Swiss Society of Gynecology. All of the remaining authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Breast conserving resection with free margins is the gold standard treatment for early breast cancer recommended by guidelines worldwide. Therefore, reliable discrimination between normal and malignant tissue at the resection margins is essential. In this study, normal and abnormal tissue samples from breast cancer patients were characterized ex vivo by optical emission spectroscopy (OES) based on ionized atoms and molecules generated during electrosurgical treatment. The aim of the study was to determine spectroscopic features which are typical for healthy and neoplastic breast tissue allowing for future real-time tissue differentiation and margin assessment during breast cancer surgery. A total of 972 spectra generated by electrosurgical sparking on normal and abnormal tissue were used for support vector classifier (SVC) training. Specific spectroscopic features were selected for the classification of tissues in the included breast cancer patients. The average classification accuracy for all patients was 96.9%. Normal and abnormal breast tissue could be differentiated with a mean sensitivity of 94.8%, a specificity of 99.0%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 99.1% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.1%. For 66.6% patients all classifications reached 100%. Based on this convincing data, a future clinical application of OES-based tissue differentiation in breast cancer surgery seems to be feasible.

Background: The phenotypes of tumor cells change during disease progression, but invasive rebiopsies of metastatic lesions are not always feasible. Here we aimed to determine whether initially HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with HER2-positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs) benefit from a HER2-targeted therapy., Methods: The open-label, interventional randomized phase III clinical trial (EudraCT Number 2010-024238-46, CliniclTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01619111) recruited from March 2012 until September 2019 with a follow-up duration of 19.5 months. It was a multicenter clinical trial with 94 participating German study centers. A total of 2137 patients with HER2-negative MBC were screened for HER2-positive CTCs with a final modified intention-to-treat population of 101 patients. Eligible patients were randomized to standard therapy with or without lapatinib. Primary study endpoints included CTC clearance (no CTCs at the end of treatment) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: In both treatment arms CTC clearance at first follow-up visit-although not being significantly different for both arms at any time point-was significantly associated with improved OS (42.4 vs 14.1 months; P = 0.002). Patients treated additionally with lapatinib had a significantly improved OS over patients receiving standard treatment (20.5 vs 9.1 months, P = 0.009)., Conclusions: DETECT III is the first clinical study indicating that phenotyping of CTCs might have clinical utility for stratification of MBC cancer patients to HER2-targeting therapies. The OS benefit could be related to lapatinib, but further studies are required to prove this clinical observation. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT01619111., (© Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine 2024. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Surgery and radiotherapy as part of breast cancer treatment can lead to lymphoedema of the upper extremities (breast cancer-related lymphoedema = BCRL) and reduce the quality of life (health-related quality of life = HRQoL). The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of paddling in a dragon boat (PP) on HRQoL and BCRL in breast cancer survivors (BCS)., Methods: Between April and October 2017, a prospective case-control study evaluated the effects of PP compared to a control group. In the paddle group (n = 28), weekly arm circumference measurements were taken at four defined anatomic areas of the arm before and after training; in the control group (n = 70), the measurements were taken once a month. At the beginning and end of the study, questionnaires from both groups (SF 36, EORTC QLQ C30) were evaluated to understand the differences in HRQoL., Results: The paddle group started with a higher HRQoL compared to the control group. Most interesting, whether the affected or unaffected arm, whether before or after training-the arm circumference decreased over time in the paddling group. A pre-existing lymphoedema was not negatively influenced by paddling. In the paddle group, the physical health was constant over the season, while the physical health of the control group decreased significantly over time., Conclusion: PP in a dragon boat does not lead to the development or worsening of pre-existing lymphoedema due to breast cancer therapy, and seems to have a positive effect on the quality of life., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Since 01/01/2020, the cervical cancer screening in Germany has been carried out due to the organized early cancer diagnosis guideline (oKFE-RL). In 2007, HPV vaccination was initiated in Germany. The main goal of both initiatives is to further reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer. To assess the effect of the new screening strategy in a timely manner, monitoring of short-term changes need to be considered. Ideally, the effects of both prevention methods would be presented together in one model., Materials and Methods: Because no change in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer is initially expected, the incidence of CIN 3 is used as a surrogate parameter to assess the effects of the prevention efforts. Based on expected additional effects of vaccination and co-testing, a model-based estimation of the expected CIN 3 incidence during the evaluation of the screening program is performed using the CIN 3 incidence in the Saarland population., Modeling Results: The oKFE-RL provides for two groups: Primary cytodiagnosis continues until 35 years of age. Here, in the next few years, CIN 3 incidence will be reduced not by the oKFE-RL but by the increasing proportion of vaccinated women. In the group over 35 years, co-testing was introduced with a stringent algorithm. Due to the higher sensitivity of the HPV test, significantly more CIN 3 are detected in the first round of 3 years and thus, the CIN 3 incidence initially increases. As these CIN 3 are absent in the second round, significantly fewer CIN 3 cases will be detected then. These effects suggest a global decrease in CIN 3 incidence of 25.8% after 6 years., Conclusion: Observation of the age distribution curve of CIN 3 allows both effects of prevention to be assessed in a timely manner and separately. In the future, data from epidemiologic cancer registries should be incorporated into the model to replace modeling with real data., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) imposes an increased risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Technical innovations, such as robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS), may provide ergonomic benefits. We compare the surgeon`s work-related demands of CLS vs RALS for benign hysterectomies., Methods: Five specialists (3 females, 2 males) each performed four RALS and four CLS as part of their daily clinical routine. During the surgical procedures, muscular demands were assessed by bipolar surface electromyograms of the descendent trapezius, extensor digitorum and flexor carpi radialis muscles as well as cardio-vascular demands by electrocardiography, and neck, arm and torso posture by gravimetrical position sensors. Additionally, the subjects rated their level of perceived workload (NASA TLX questionnaire with 6 dimension) and musculoskeletal discomfort (11-point Likert-scale, 0-10)., Results: Muscular demands of the trapezius and flexor carpi radialis muscles were lower with RALS but extensor digitorum demands increased. Cardiovascular demands were about 9 heart beats per minute (bpm) lower for RALS compared to CLS with a rather low median level for both surgical techniques (RALS = 84 bpm; CLS 90 bpm). The posture changed in RALS with an increase in neck and torso flexion, and a reduction in abduction and anteversion position of the right arm. The perceived workload was lower in the physical demands dimension but higher in the mental demands dimension during RALS. Subjective musculoskeletal discomfort was rare during both surgical techniques., Conclusions: This explorative study identified several potential ergonomic benefits related to RALS which now can be verified by studies using hypothesis testing designs. However, potential effects on muscular demands in the lower arm extensor muscles also have to be addressed in such studies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The PRAEGNANT study is a registry study for metastatic breast cancer patients, focusing on biomarker detection. Recently, within this study, genetic alterations in 37 breast cancer predisposition genes were analyzed and genetic findings were detected for 396 participants. The aim of this project was to return genetic results to the physicians and to analyze actions taken (e.g., disclosure of results to patients, validation of results, clinical impact, and impact on the patient's quality of life) using a questionnaire., Methods: 235 questionnaires were sent out to the study centers, with each questionnaire representing one patient with a genetic finding. The questionnaire consisted of twelve questions in the German language, referring to the disclosure of results, validation of test results, and their impact on treatment decisions and on the patient's quality of life., Results: 135 (57.5%) questionnaires were completed. Of these, 46 (34.1%) stated that results were returned to the patients. In 80.0% (N = 36) of cases where results were returned, the patient had not been aware of the finding previously. For 27 patients (64.3%), genetic findings had not been validated beforehand. All validation procedures (N = 15) were covered by the patients' health insurance. For 11 (25.0%) patients, physicians reported that the research results influenced current or future decision-making on treatment, and for 37.8% (N = 17) the results influenced whether family members will be genetically tested., Conclusion: This study provides novel insights into the return of research results and into clinical and personal benefits of disclosure of genetic findings within a German registry., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The diagnosis of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (MRKHS), a rare variant of female sexual development, is usually made during puberty. The uncertainty in self-image and the impos-sibility of becoming pregnant often lead to considerable stress. Although psychosomatic support is consistently recommended in the literature, there have been only a few studies on the psychological aspects of MRKHS. The aim of the present study is to investigate the quality of life or distress of women with MRKHS undergoing neovaginal surgery and, on the other hand, to evaluate effects of the intervention for support during treatment. Methods In an explorative quasi-experimental pre-post study at a national centre for neovaginal surgery, all patients were offered a psychosomatic intervention (intervention group IG, n=23) and their sexual function (FSFI), psychological distress (PHQ-D) and health-related quality of life (SF-12) were assessed before surgery (t0) and six months after (t1). These were compared with data from a sample collected before and after the intervention period (comparison group VG, n=30). Results While the physical quality of life (SF-12) of both groups was unremarkable at both time points, there was a significant impairment in the psychological quality of life. Both groups (IG, VG) improved from t0 to t1 in their sexual function (FSFI) and showed lower depression scores (PHQ-D). The specific intervention developed was well accepted by those affected and rated as helpful. However, this subjectively perceived effectiveness of the intervention was not reflected by improvement on the quality of life scale (SF-12) and depression scale (PHQ-D). Conclusion Those affected show a clear, clinically relevant distress (SF-12), but this is not reflected in the form of psychological comorbidity (PHQ-D). This apparent discrepancy points to psychologically stable women with acute distress due to the diagnosis of variant sex de-evolution. For them, a low-threshold support service with a supportive character seems to be necessary and helpful during the surgical treatment. The reconstructive therapy for the creation of a neovagina seems to have a positive influence on the psychological quality of life. The fact that pregnancy is still not possible due to the missing uterus could be a reason for not reaching the quality of life of the average population., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Purpuse: The paracervical block (PCB) is a local anesthesia procedure that can be used to perform gynecological surgeries without the need for further anesthesia. With the PCB, surgeries can be moved from the central operating room to outpatient operating rooms, where they can be performed without the presence of an anesthesia team., Methods: In this paper, the indications, implementation and limitations of the procedure are discussed., Conclusion: Especially in times of scarce staff and OR resources during the Corona pandemic, OR capacity can be expanded in this way., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer (dnMBC) may have different clinical and pathological characteristics. In studies concerned with first-line metastatic patients, the proportion of these patients without secondary resistance mechanisms may have a large influence ont the study results. The aim of this study was to identify patient and tumor characteristics that are associated with dnMBC vs. recurrent MBC (rMBC)., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected in the PRAEGNANT metastatic breast cancer registry (NCT02338167). Firs line treated patients were eligible. Patient and tumor characteristics were compared with common disease and tumor characteristics relative to de novo metastatic status, as well as early and late recurrences after primary disease without metastases., Results: Among the 947 patients identified, 355 were included with de novo metastatic disease (37.5%). Older age and HER2-positive disease were significantly associated with a higher frequency of dnMBC. Patients younger than 50, 50-69, or 70 years or older had dnMBC frequencies of 22.7%, 44.0%, and 57.6%, respectively. HER2-positive patients had dnMBC at initial presentation in 49.1% of cases, in comparison with 21.9%, 35.5%, and 37.6% in patients with triple-negative, luminal A-like and luminal B-like breast cancer, respectively., Conclusion: Age and breast cancer subtype are associated with the frequency of first-line MBC patients. Inclusion criteria concerning age or breast cancer subtype can influence the frequency of these patients in a selected patient population and can therefore modify the number of patients with secondary resistance to specific therapies in clinical trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement V.M. has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar. A.D.H. has received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen and Roche. P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva; his institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, SurgVision, Onkowissen and Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, travel support from Tesaro and Daiichi Sankyo and holds stock of Theraclion and Phaon scientific. H.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA, and Pfizer, and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. J.E. has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Tesaro; contracted research from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Odonate; and travel support from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Tesaro. D.L. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Teva, Loreal, GSK, MSD, Roche, Astra Zeneca. M.W. received grants from Astra Zeneca, grants from Celgene, grants from Roche, grants from MSD and grants from Novartis during the conduct of the study. E.B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, and onkowissen.de. P.W. has received honoraria for scientific talks or grants from Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Teva, Eisai, Clovis and Tesaro. C.H. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Onkovis. C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Onkotrakt, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Hilotherm, NewCo, research grants from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Immunomedics, MSD Sharp&Dohme (Merck), NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Reimser, Roche, Seattle Genetics and travel support from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Hexal, Immunomedics, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Tesaro, TEVA Oncology. R.W. has received honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Exact Science, Nanostring, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, and Viatris. M.U. has received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche Pharma, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Clovis Oncology, and Seattle Genetics. W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, Astra Zeneca, MSD, and Daiichi-Sankyo. F.A.T. has received honoraria from Hexal, Novartis, Tesaro and travel expenses from GSK. M.P.L. has received honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Pierre-Fabre, PharmaMar and medac for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, Astra Zeneca. T.N.F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, TEVA, Diachii Sankyo, Astra Zeneca and MSD. All remaining others (A.H., P.H., L.H., M.W.B, S.U., J.M., L.A.W., D.W., L.L.M.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background Comprehensive data from prospective clinical trials have led to a high level of evidence establishing CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine treatment (CDK4/6i + ET) as a standard for the treatment of HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HER2- HR+) breast cancer patients in the first-line advanced therapy setting. Data on patient populations that have been treated in the real-world setting may provide an insight into changes of patient characteristics and prognosis over time. Methods The data were extracted from the prospective real-world registry PRAEGNANT (NCT02338167). Patients had to have HER2- HR+ advanced breast cancer in the first-line metastatic setting. The chosen therapies were described as well as progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to the given therapies and time periods during which they were indicated. Results CDK4/6 inhibitors have been rapidly implemented since their introduction in November 2016. In recent years (2018 - 2022), about 70 - 80% of the patient population have been treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors, while endocrine monotherapy was given to about 10% and chemotherapy to about 15% of all patients. The prognosis was worst in patients treated with chemotherapy. Recently, mainly patients with a good prognosis are being treated with endocrine monotherapy, and patients who are treated with chemotherapy have an unfavorable prognosis. The PFS and OS of patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET have remained similar over time despite changes in patient characteristics. Conclusion A treatment with CDK4/6i + ET has rapidly become the therapy standard for patients in the first-line advanced breast cancer setting. After the implementation of CDK4/6i + ET, endocrine monotherapy is only given to patients with a very favorable prognosis, while chemotherapy is provided to patients with a rather unfavorable prognosis. These changes in patient characteristics did not seem to influence the prognosis of patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest T. E. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. P. A. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma, and Teva; his institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. D. L. has received honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Teva, Loreal, GSK, MSD, Roche, onkowissen, High5MD and AstraZeneca. A. D. H. has received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, and Roche. V. M. has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, and Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, and Nektar. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss Meditec, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Agendia, Gilead, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo and Genomic Health/Exact Sciences and travel support from Tesaro and Daiichi Sankyo; he owns stocks of Theraclion and Phaon scientific. H. T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, and Pfizer and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. J. E. has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Tesaro; contracted research from Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Odonate; and travel support from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and Tesaro. M. Wa. received grants from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Roche, MSD, and Novartis during the conduct of the study. E. B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, and onkowissen.de. P. W. has received honoraria for scientific talks and grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Celgene, GSK, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Teva, Eisai, Clovis, and Tesaro. C. H. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Onkovis. C. M. K. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Onkotrakt, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Hilotherm, and NewCo; research grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, Immunomedics, MSD, NewCo, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Reimser, Roche, and Seattle Genetics; and travel support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Immunomedics, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Tesaro, and Teva Oncology. R. W. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Esai, Exact Science, Nanostring, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, and Viatris. M. U. has received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Clovis Oncology, and Seattle Genetics. L. L. M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Eisai for advisory boards, lectures and travel support. W. J. has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo. F. A. T. has received honoraria from GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Tesaro and travel expenses from GSK. M. We. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. M. P. L. has received honoraria from Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Pierre-Fabre, PharmaMar, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, Samantree, Sysmex, pfm and medac for advisory boards, lectures, and travel support. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, and AstraZeneca. T. N. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Teva, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and MSD. A. S. received research grants from Celgene, Roche, honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. All others (A. H., P. H., P. K., H.-M. E., M. M., D. H., L. H., M. W.B, S. U., D. W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).)

Background: Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have been reported to predict clinical outcome in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Biology of CTCs may differ from that of the primary tumor and HER2-positive CTCs are found in some patients with HER2-negative tumors., Patients and Methods: Patients with HER2-negative MBC were screened for participation in DETECT III and IV trials before the initiation of a new line of therapy. Blood samples were analyzed using CELLSEARCH. CTCs were labeled with an anti-HER2 antibody and classified according to staining intensity (negative, weak, moderate, or strong staining)., Results: Screening blood samples were analyzed in 1933 patients with HER2-negative MBC. As many as 1217 out of the 1933 screened patients (63.0%) had ≥1 CTC per 7.5 ml blood; ≥5 CTCs were detected in 735 patients (38.0%; range 1-35 078 CTCs, median 8 CTCs). HER2 status of CTCs was assessed in 1159 CTC-positive patients; ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining was found in 174 (15.0%) patients. The proportion of CTCs with strong HER2 staining among all CTCs of an individual patient ranged between 0.06% and 100% (mean 15.8%). Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)- and progesterone receptor (PR)-positive tumors were more likely to harbor ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining. CTC status was significantly associated with overall survival (OS). Detection of ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining was associated with shorter OS [9.7 (7.1-12.3) versus 16.5 (14.9-18.1) months in patients with CTCs with negative-to-moderate HER2 staining only, P = 0.013]. In multivariate analysis, age, ER status, PR status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, therapy line, and CTC status independently predicted OS., Conclusion: CTC detection in patients with HER2-negative disease is a strong prognostic factor. Presence of ≥1 CTC with strong HER2 staining was associated with shorter OS, supporting a biological role of HER2 expression on CTCs., Competing Interests: Disclosure VM received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, and Seagen; consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Clin Sol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, and Seagen; institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, and Genentech; travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo. MBP received honoraria for lectures and advisory role from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, AstraZeneca, pfm, and Amgen; and study support from Endomag, Mammotome and Merit Medical. PW has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche Pharma, Clovis, and Lilly; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Clovis, TEVA, Eisai, and Lilly; serves on the advisory board of Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, Clovis, TEVA, Eisai, and Lilly. NH reports honoraria for consulting and/or lectures from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and Seagen. JH received research funding from Celgene, Novartis, and Hexal; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, Eisai, and AbbVie; honoraria for consulting/advisory relationship from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Hexal, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, and AbbVie; and travel expenses from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, and Daiichi. TF reports honoraria from Novartis, unrelated to this work. OH received honoraria for advisory boards, lectures, and congress and travel expense support from Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Riemser Pharma, Celgene, and Seagen. FMS reports consulting fees from Amgen. TF received consulting fees (e.g. advisory boards) from Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer Teva, and fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents (e.g. speakers’ bureaus): Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, and Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Daily, we face a plenty of negative information that can profoundly affect our perception and behavior. During devastating events such as the current COVID-19 pandemic, negative messages may hinder reasoning at individual level and social decisions in the society at large. These effects vary across genders in neurotypical populations (being more evident in women) and may be even more pronounced in individuals with neuropsychiatric disorders such as depression. Here, we examine how negative information impacts reasoning on a social perception task in females with breast cancer, a life-threatening disease. Two groups of patients and two groups of matched controls ( N TO TAL = 80; median age, 50 years) accomplished a psychometrically standardized social cognition and reasoning task receiving either the standard instruction solely or additional negative information. Performance substantially dropped in patients and matched controls who received negative information compared to those who did not. Moreover, patients with negative information scored much lower not only compared with controls but also with patients without negative information. We suggest the effects of negative information are mediated by the distributed brain networks involved in affective processing and emotional memory. The findings offer novel insights on the impact of negative information on social perception and decision making during life-threatening events, fostering better understanding of its neurobiological underpinnings., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Simoes, Sokolov, Hahn, Fallgatter, Brucker, Wallwiener and Pavlova.)

Purpose: Assessment of HER2 overexpression using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or in situ hybridisation (ISH) for the detection of HER2 amplifications is standard to identify patients for established HER2-directed treatments. Patients with lower HER2 expression levels have recently also become candidates for novel therapies targeting HER2. This study aimed to assess tumour and patient characteristics and prognosis in patients with advanced breast cancer (aBC), relative to low HER2 expression levels., Methods: PRAEGNANT is a prospective aBC registry (NCT02338167), focusing on molecular biomarkers. Patients in all therapy lines receiving any kind of treatment are eligible. This analysis includes patients with conventionally HER2-negative aBC. Clinical outcome was compared in the groups with no (IHC score 0) or with low HER2 expression (IHC 1+, or IHC 2+/ISH negative)., Results: Low HER2 expression levels in triple-negative aBC patients did not influence progression-free survival. Overall survival appeared poorer in patients with IHC 2+ compared with patients with no HER2 expression in the unadjusted analysis (hazard ratio 2.24, 95% confidence interval 0.1.12-4.47). However, this effect was not maintained in the adjusted analysis. In HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive patients, low HER2 expression appeared to have no effect on prognosis, neither progression-free survival nor overall survival., Conclusions: We could not demonstrate that HER2 expression at a low level and assessed in clinical routine can differentiate patients into prognostic groups. However, the prevalence of patients with a low expression makes this population interesting for clinical trials with potentially active treatments using HER2 as a target., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.D.H. has received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; J.E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Pfizer; M.P.L. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, medac and Exact Sciences for advisory boards, lectures and travel support; B.V. has received honoraria from Novartis; F.A.T. has received honoraria from Hexal, Novartis, Tesaro and travel expenses from GSK; F.O. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Cellex, Chugai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro and Teva; P.H. received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; H.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA and Pfizer, and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer; J.E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Pfizer; D.L. has received honoraria from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, TEVA, Celgene, Eisai, and Loreal. M.W. has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene and Novartis; V.M. has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar; E.B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo and onkowissen.de; C.H. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Onkovis; C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Axios, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, NewCo, Pfizer, Riemser and ZytoService, research grants from Amgen, Axios, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Pfizer and ZytoService, and travel support from Amgen, Paxman Inc., PharmaMar and Pfizer; R.W. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Exact Science, Nanostring, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Odonate, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva and Viatris; C.T. has received honoraria from Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo and AstraZeneca; M.U. has received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche Pharma, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Clovis Oncology and Seattle Genetics; P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva, his institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech; W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, AstraZeneca, MSD and Daiichi-Sankyo; T.N.F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, TEVA, Diachii Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD; S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva and AstraZeneca. A.S. has received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed GmbH, Celgene, ClinSol Research GmbH, Connectmedica Sp.Z o.o., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie GmbH, if-kongress management gmbh, I-MED Institute GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medicultus GmbH, med publico GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, onkowissen.de GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Schattauer Verlag GmbH, Promedicis GmbH, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH and W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH; H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss Meditec, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, SurgVision, Onkowissen and Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, travel support from Tesaro and Daiichi-Sankyo and holds stock of Theraclion and Phaon scientific. All remaining others (A.H., L.H., L.A.W., M.W.B., P.W., D.W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Clip-marking of axillary lymph nodes with initial biopsy-confirmed metastasis is required for targeted axillary dissection (TAD), which includes sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) and selective localization and removal of the clipped targeted lymph node. There have been several studies which examined the feasibility of TAD in routine clinical use. In this context, the optimal clip visualisation was noted as one of the crucial limiting factors. We, therefore, evaluated the sonographic detectability of 10 different commercially available markers within an in vitro model simulating the anatomical composition of the axilla., Methods: In this standardised model consisting of porcine fat with 30 mm thickness, the visibility of a total of ten markers was analysed in all 3 planes (parallel, diagonal, orthograde) with wire guidance and then classified into either "visibility good", "visibility moderate" or "visibility poor" with regard to the alignment of the transducer. Additionally, "real-life conditions" were simulated, in which the markers were searched without any wires guidance., Results: It was observed that, while not all markers are detectable in fatty tissue, markers with spherical shape (non-embedded Inconel or Nitinol) or rectangular-shaped Titanium markers with embedded material have a clear advantage. 3D-shaped markers can always be detected in all three axes, which is of particular importance in the axilla with its pyramid shape and fatty tissue., Conclusion: The shape and the embedding of the material play a crucial role for visibility and efficacy of the marker, as reliable marking of suspicious and pathological axillary lymph nodes is essential for TAD., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Presence of disseminated tumour cells (DTCs) in the bone marrow (BM) has been described as a surrogate of residual disease in patients with early breast cancer (EBC). PADDY (Pooled Analysis of DTC Detection in Early Breast Cancer) is a large international analysis of pooled data that aimed to assess the prognostic impact of DTCs in patients with EBC., Experimental Design: Individual patient data were collected from 11 centres. Patients with EBC and available follow-up data in whom BM sampling was performed at the time of primary diagnosis before receiving any anticancer treatment were eligible. DTCs were identified by antibody staining against epithelial cytokeratins. Multivariate Cox regression was used to compare the survival of DTC-positive versus DTC-negative patients., Results: In total, 10,307 patients were included. Of these, 2814 (27.3%) were DTC-positive. DTC detection was associated with higher tumour grade, larger tumour size, nodal positivity, oestrogen receptor and progesterone receptor negativity, and HER2 positivity (all p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that DTC detection was an independent prognostic marker for overall survival, disease-free survival and distant disease-free survival with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 1.23 (95% CI: 1.06-1.43, p = 0.006), 1.30 (95% CI: 1.12-1.52, p < 0.001) and 1.30 (95% CI: 1.08-1.56, p = 0.006), respectively. There was no association between locoregional relapse-free survival and DTC detection (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.68-2.16; p = 0.512)., Conclusions: DTCs in the BM represent an independent prognostic marker in patients with EBC. The heterogeneous metastasis-initiating potential of DTCs is consistent with the concept of cancer dormancy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ADH, FAT and SYB report a grant from Exact Sciences. TNF received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Esai, Tesaro, Teva, Celgene, Daichi Sankyo, MSD, Menarini. PAF reports grants from Cepheid, Novartis and Biontech, personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, Astra Zeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Macrogenics, Eisai, Puma and Lilly. CAK is a member of the SAB of HiberCell, New York. All other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background/aim: Detection of disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) after systemic treatment predicts poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. The aim of our study was to assess the expression of stem-cell marker SOX2 on DTCs and in the primary tumor of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT)., Materials and Methods: In 170 DTC-positive patients after NAT an additional slide of bone marrow aspirate was stained by double immunofluorescence to detect SOX2-positive DTCs. The SOX2 status of the primary tumor was assessed using the same antibody., Results: The SOX2-status of DTCs was determined in 62 patients and 20 of those (32%) had SOX2 positive DTCs. The SOX2 status of DTCs was not associated with any of the clinicopathological factors. A total of 36% of the patients with a SOX2-negative tumor showed SOX2-positive persistent DTCs., Conclusion: SOX2-positive DTCs can be detected in breast cancer patients after NAT, even in patients with SOX2-negative primary tumors. This suggests that these populations may have evolved independently of each other., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Among patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the frequency of germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes and the clinical relevance of these mutations are unclear. In this study, a prospective cohort of patients with mBC was used to determine mutation rates for breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with mutations, and to assess the influence of mutations on patient outcome., Patients and Methods: Germline DNA from 2,595 patients with mBC enrolled in the prospective PRAEGNANT registry was evaluated for mutations in cancer predisposition genes. The frequencies of mutations in known BC predisposition genes were compared with results from a prospective registry of patients with nonmetastatic BC sequenced using the same QIAseq method and with public reference controls. Associations between mutation status and tumor characteristics, progression-free survival, and overall survival were assessed., Results: Germline mutations in 12 established BC predisposition genes (including BRCA1 and BRCA2 ) were detected in 271 (10.4%) patients. A mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was seen in 129 patients (5.0%). BRCA1 mutation carriers had a higher proportion of brain metastasis (27.1%) compared with nonmutation carriers (12.8%). Mutations were significantly enriched in PRAEGNANT patients with mBC compared with patients with nonmetastatic BC (10.4% v 6.6%, P < .01). Mutations did not significantly modify progression-free survival or overall survival for patients with mBC., Conclusion: Multigene panel testing may be considered in all patients with mBC because of the high frequency of germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and other BC predisposition genes. Although the prognosis of mutation carriers and nonmutation carriers with mBC was similar, differences observed in tumor characteristics have implications for treatment and for future studies of targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Peter A. FaschingHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, ClinSol GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Lilly, Cepheid, BionTech, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Teva, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Myelo Therapeutics GmbH, MacrogenicsResearch Funding: Novartis, BioNTech AG, Cepheid Eric C. PolleyResearch Funding: GRAIL Hans TeschHonoraria: Novartis, Roche Pharma AG, Pfizer, Amgen GmbH, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, Lilly, Eisai, MSD Oncology, Grünethal, Bristol Myers Squibb, Mundipharma, ClinSol GmbHTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Pharma AG, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Vifor Pharma, Lilly, Eisai Europe, MSD Oncology Johannes EttlHonoraria: Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Roche, Teva, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Celgene, Pierre FabreConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Tesaro, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Daiichi SankyoSpeakers' Bureau: Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Teva, Celgene, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Teva, Celgene, Lilly, NovartisOther Relationship: Tesaro Friedrich OverkampHonoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Chugai, Celgene, Eisai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novonordisc, Riemser, Servier, ShireConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Celgene, Clovis, Eusapharma, Hexal, Oncopeptides, Pfizer, Takeda Michael P. LuxHonoraria: Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Eisai, Roche Pharma AG, Genomic Health, MSD OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Grünenthal Group, Genomic Health, Eisai, MSD Oncology, Pierre FabreSpeakers' Bureau: Roche Pharma AG, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Eisai Germany, Exact SciencesResearch Funding: Discovering Hands, MSD Oncology, German Breast Group, Roche, PRAEGNANT Network, Grünenthal Group, SamantreeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Roche Pharma AGOther Relationship: MedacUncompensated Relationships: Pfizer, AstraZeneca Diana LüftnerHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, L'Oreal, Teva Innovation Canada, SanofiResearch Funding: NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, Pfizer, Novartis Markus WallwienerHonoraria: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, CelgeneConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Volkmar MüllerHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Nektar, Genomic Health, Lilly, Seattle GeneticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Hexal, Roche, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Nektar, Eisai, Lilly, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Roche/GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo Erik BellevilleConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, HexalResearch Funding: Novartis, Hexal, Merrimack, AstraZeneca, PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Onkowissen Michael UntchHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Art tempi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiji Sankyo, Roche Pharma AG, Pfizer, Mundipharma, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, AgendiaConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Mundipharma, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, Agendia, Pierre Fabre, Seattle Genetics Hans-Christian KolbergStock and Other Ownership Interests: Theraclion, Phaon ScientificHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Theraclion, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Genomic Health, SurgVision, Theramex, MSD Oncology, OnkowissenConsulting or Advisory Role: SurgVision, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Carl Zeiss Meditec, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Roche, LIV Pharma, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Genomic Health Arndt HartmannHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Janssen-Cilag, IpsenConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Cepheid, Qiagen, Janssen-Cilag, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, NanoString Technologies, Illumina, 3DHISTECH, DiaceuticsResearch Funding: Cepheid, BioNTech AG, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, NanoString Technologies, AstraZenecaExpert Testimony: NanoString Technologies Wolfgang JanniHonoraria: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, MSD OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle GeneticsResearch Funding: Janssen Diagnostics, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Amgen Pauline WimbergerHonoraria: AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Teva, Eisai, Novartis/Pfizer, Roche Pharma AG, Amgen, PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Roche Pharma AG, Tesaro, PharmaMarTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Pharma AG Florin-Andrei TaranHonoraria: Tesaro, NovartisConsulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: GlaxoSmithKline Tanja N. FehmConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Diethelm WallwienerConsulting or Advisory Role: ConsalResearch Funding: Roche Pharma AG, Pfizer, Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme Sara Y. BruckerConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, Merck Sharp & Dohme, OlympusResearch Funding: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Genomic HealthTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Olympus, Teva, Merck Sharp & Dohme Andreas SchneeweissHonoraria: Roche Pharma AG, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, MSD Oncology, Lilly, TesaroResearch Funding: Roche Pharma AG, Celgene, Abbvie, Molecular PartnersExpert Testimony: Roche, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Celgene Andreas D. HartkopfHonoraria: Roche, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Genomic Health, Agendia, Pfizer, Amgen Fergus J. CouchConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Ambry Genetics, QiagenResearch Funding: GRAILTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: GRAIL, QiagenOther Relationship: Ambry GeneticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: The therapeutic armamentarium for patients with metastatic breast cancer is becoming more and more specific. Recommendations from clinical trials are not available for all treatment situations and patient subgroups, and it is therefore important to collect real-world data., Summary: To develop recommendations for up-to-date treatments and participation in clinical trials for patients with metastatic breast cancer, the Prospective Academic Translational Research PRAEGNANT Network was established to optimize the quality of oncological care in the advanced therapeutic setting. The main aim of PRAEGNANT is to systematically record medical care for patients with metastatic breast cancer in the real-life setting, including the outcome and side effects of different treatment strategies, to monitor quality-of-life changes during therapy, to identify patients eligible for participation in clinical studies, and to allow targeted therapies based on the molecular structures of breast carcinomas., Key Messages: This article describes the PRAEGNANT network and sheds light on the question of whether the various end points from clinical trials can be transferred to the real-world treatment situation., Competing Interests: E.B. has received honoraria from Novartis, Celgene, Riemser, Pfizer, Hexal, Amgen, and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management, and medical education activities. M.W.B.'s institution has received research funding from Novartis and BioNTech. J.E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Pfizer. T.N.F. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eisai, Pfizer, and Roche. P.A.F. reports grants from Novartis, Cepheid, and BioNTech, personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, TEVA, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myelo Therapeutics, Macrogenics, Eisai, and Puma. A.D.H. has received honoraria from Teva, Genomic Health, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, and Roche. W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Novartis. H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss Meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, MSD, Onkowissen, SurgVision, Roche, and Genomic Health. D.L. has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva. M.P.L. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Medac, and Exact Sciences for consultancy services, lectures, and travel support. V.M. has received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Roche, Teva, and Janssen-Cilag, and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eisai. F.O. has received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beiersdorf, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Cellex, Chugai, Eisai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Novonordisc, Riemser, Roche, Servier, Shire, Tesaro, and Teva. A.S. has received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, and proMedicis GmbH. H.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA, and Pfizer, and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. M.W. has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis. S.Y.B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, and Astra Zeneca. All of the remaining authors (D.W., A.T., and P.P.) have declared that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.)

The objective of the present study was to analyze the prognostic relevance of pretreatment serum CA125 ≥500 U/ml and its role as a non-invasive factor for estimating optimal cytoreduction (≤1 cm) in primary serous ovarian cancer. Clinicopathological parameters and CA125 levels prior to primary cytoreductive surgery were retrospectively evaluated in all 261 consecutive patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer from a single centre. Inclusion criteria were existing preoperative CA125 level, serous ovarian cancer and performed full primary treatment (surgery/platinum-based chemotherapy). A total of 136 patients met the criteria. Among them, 74 patients had CA125 ≥500 U/ml. The other 62 patients that met the aforementioned criteria and had CA125 <500 U/ml were defined as controls. The present study tested cut-off CA125 values to detect subgroups affecting prognosis. The goal was to evaluate patients with optimal cytoreduction (R≤1 cm). Univariate analyses were performed with PASW to identify clinicopathological parameters associated with the pretreatment CA125 level. For survival analyses, a cut-off-value of CA125 ≥500 U/ml was used to identify the association between preoperative CA125 levels, resection status and prognosis. To test significant differences between examined groups, Student's t-test and the Mann-Whitney test were used. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. Significantly worse prognosis in terms of overall survival (P=0.023) and progression-free survival (P=0.011) was detected in the CA125 ≥500 U/ml group of optimally cytoreduced patients compared with in the CA125 <500 U/ml group. The complete cytoreduction rate was higher in CA125 <500 U/ml (33.9%) vs. CA125 ≥500 U/ml (21.6%). A CA125 level >1,404 U/ml had a higher rate of suboptimal cytoreduction (32.4%) compared with lower CA125 levels. A pretreatment CA125 level ≥500 U/ml had significantly worse prognostic impact after optimal cytoreduction compared with CA125 <500 U/ml. The higher the CA125 level the higher the suboptimal cytoreduction rate. Patients with CA125 ≥500 U/ml may be candidates for an initial laparoscopic approach to specify resectability and to determine how to proceed. Overall, CA125 levels appear to be helpful in predicting suboptimal cytoreductive surgery for patients with primary ovarian cancer, but should be interpreted together with clinical and radiologic findings. This may improve defining the optimal treatment strategy in these patients., (Copyright: © Bachmann et al.)

Purpose: Patients with estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive, early breast cancer benefit from hormonal treatment, yet high global death burdens due to high prevalence and long-term recurrence risk call for biomarkers to guide additional treatment approaches., Experimental Design: From a prospective, observational study of postmenopausal early breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors, gene expression analyses of 612 tumors was performed using the NanoString Breast Cancer 360 panel to interrogate 23 breast cancer pathways. Candidate signatures associated with disease subtype and event-free survival (EFS) were obtained by cluster analysis, Cox modeling, and conditional inference trees, and were independently tested in 613 patients from BreastMark. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) were assessed on tissue sections, and mutational burden was assessed in 36 tumors by whole-exome sequencing., Results: PAM50-derived classification distinguished lower-risk (Luminal A) from higher-risk subtypes (Luminal B, P = 0.04; HER2, P = 0.006; Basal, P = 0.008). In higher-risk patients, shorter EFS was associated with low androgen receptor [HR = 3.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.72-7.56; P = 0.001] or high BRCAness signature expression (HR = 3.58; 95% CI, 1.19-10.7; P = 0.023). BRCAness was independently confirmed as a predictor of shorter EFS (HR = 2.64; 95% CI, 1.31-5.34; P = 0.007). About 13%-15% of patients, enriched for high-grade, higher-risk subtypes ( P ≤ 0.0001), had strong expression of the Tumor Inflammation Signature (TIS) suggestive of an inhibited antitumor immune response. TIS scores were strongly associated with TIL numbers ( P < 1e-30) but not with tumor mutation status., Conclusions: BRCA-related DNA repair deficiency and suppressed tumor immune responses may be clinically relevant predictors of endocrine therapy complementing treatment options in subgroups of hormone-sensitive early breast cancer., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors and endocrine therapy (CDK4/6i + ET) is a standard for patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR + HER2-) breast cancer (BC). However, real-world data on the implementation of therapy usage, efficacy, and toxicity have not yet been reported., Methods: The PRAEGNANT registry was used to identify advanced HR + HER2- BC patients (n = 1136). The use of chemotherapy, ET, everolimus + ET, and CDK4/6i + ET was analyzed for first-line, second-line, and third-line therapy. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were also compared between patients treated with CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy. Also toxicity was assessed., Results: CDK4/6i + ET use increased from 38.5% to 62.7% in the first 2 years after CDK4/6i treatment became available (November 2016). Chemotherapy and ET monotherapy use decreased from 2015 to 2018 from 42.2% to 27.2% and from 53% to 9.5%, respectively. In this early analysis no statistically significant differences were found comparing CDK4/6i + ET and ET monotherapy patients with regard to PFS and OS. Leukopenia was was seen in 11.3% of patients under CDK4/6i + ET and 0.5% under ET monotherapy., Conclusions: In clinical practice, CDK4/6i + ET has been rapidly implemented. A group of patients with a more unfavorable prognosis was possibly treated in the real-world setting than in the reported randomized clinical trials. The available data suggest that longer follow-up times and a larger sample size are required in order to identify differences in survival outcomes. Studies should be supported that investigate whether chemotherapy can be avoided or delayed in this patient population by using CDK4/6i + ET., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A.S. received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed GmbH, Celgene, ClinSol Research GmbH, Connectmedica Sp.Z o.o., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie GmbH, if-kongress management gmbh, I-MED Institute GmbH, Lilly Deutschland GmbH, Medicultus GmbH, med publico GmbH, MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH, onkowissen.de GmbH, Pfizer GmbH, Schattauer Verlag GmbH, Promedicis GmbH, Tesaro Bio Germany GmbH, W. Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH. J.E. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and TEVA and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, TEVA, and Pierre Fabre. D.L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva. M.W.B reports support from Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Roche, Amgen, Eisai, paid to his institution. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Celgene, Riemser, Pfizer, Hexal, Amgen, onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. P.A.F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. T.N.F. reports personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daichii Sankyo, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. P.H. received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. A.D.H. received honoraria from Teva, GenomicHealth, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. C.H. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Oncovis, Roche, and Pfizer. J.H. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Lilly, travel grants from Novartis and research grants from Novartis, Celgene. E.R. reports personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Amgen, Novartis, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Pierre Fabre and Riemer, non-financial support from Olympus GmbH, personal fees from Riemser, outside the submitted work. W.J. received research grants and honoroaria from Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Chugai, Roche, Genomic-Health, AstraZeneca, Lilly. H.-C.K. received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, and Genomic Health. C.M.K. received honoraria from Amgen, Axios, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, NewCo, Pfizer, Riemser, and ZytoService, research grants from Amgen, Axios, Novartis, MSD Sharp & Dohme, NewCo, Pfizer, and ZytoService, and travel support from Amgen, Paxman Inc., PharmaMar, and Pfizer. M.P.L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Genomic Health, Tesaro and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, medac and Eisai. V.M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Janssen-Cilag and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro and Nektar. N.N. received consultancy honoraria from Janssen-Cilag and travel support from Novartis. F.O. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer, Celgene, Cellex, Chugai, Gilead, Hexal, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Riemser, Roche, Tesaro, Teva. H.T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, TEVA, and Pfizer and travel support. F.-A. T. received honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Genomic Health and Novartis. C.T. received honoraria from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. M.U. reports support paid to his institution from Abbvie, Amgen GmbH München, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Celgene GmbH München, Daiji Sankyo, Eisai GmbH München, Janssen Cilag, Johnsen&Johnsen, Lilly Deutschland, Lilly Int., MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics GmbH Zürich, Odonate, Pfizer GmbH Berlin, PUMA Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach Wyhlen, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sividon Diagnostics Köln, TEVA Pharmaceuticals Ind. Ltd. und. Berlin(.)P.W. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. She participated in advisory boards of Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, TEVA, Eisai Clovis and Tesaro. Her institution received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Clovis and Tesaro. R.W. received honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Esai, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PumaBiotechnolgogy, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva. M.W. received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis. S.Y.B. reports personal fees from Novartis and Pfizer, both outside the submitted work. All remaining authors (J.S., E.K., M.G., L.H., B.V., D.W.) have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Eligibility criteria are a critical part of clinical trials, as they define the patient population under investigation. Besides certain patient characteristics, clinical trials often include biomarker testing for eligibility. However, patient-identification mostly relies on the trial site itself and is often a time-consuming procedure, which could result in missing out on potentially eligible patients. Pre-selection of those patients using a registry could facilitate the process of eligibility testing and increase the number of identified patients. One aim with the PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167) is to identify patients for therapies based on clinical and molecular data. Here, we report eligibility testing for the SHERBOC trial using the German PRAEGNANT registry., Methods: Heregulin (HRG) has been reported to identify patients with better responses to therapy with the anti-HER3 monoclonal antibody seribantumab (MM-121). The SHERBOC trial investigated adding seribantumab (MM-121) to standard therapy in patients with advanced HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive) breast cancer and HRG overexpression. The PRAEGNANT registry was used for identification and tumor testing, helping to link potential HRG positive patients to the trial. Patients enrolled in PRAEGNANT have invasive and metastatic or locally advanced, inoperable breast cancer. Patients eligible for SHERBOC were identified by using the registry. Study aims were to describe the HRG positivity rate, screening procedures, and patient characteristics associated with inclusion and exclusion criteria., Results: Among 2769 unselected advanced breast cancer patients, 650 were HER2-negative, HR-positive and currently receiving first- or second-line treatment, thus potentially eligible for SHERBOC at the end of current treatment; 125 patients also met further clinical eligibility criteria (e.g. menopausal status, ECOG). In the first/second treatment lines, patients selected for SHERBOC based on further eligibility criteria had a more favorable prognosis than those not selected. HRG status was tested in 38 patients, 14 of whom (36.8%) proved to be HRG-positive., Conclusion: Using a real-world breast cancer registry allowed identification of potentially eligible patients for SHERBOC focusing on patients with HER3 overexpressing, HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This approach may provide insights into differences between patients eligible or non-eligible for clinical trials., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials, NCT02338167 , Registered 14 January 2015 - retrospectively registered.

Purpose Pertuzumab and T-DM1 are two efficient anti-HER2 treatments for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. While pertuzumab is usually given in first-line treatment and T-DM1 in second-line treatment, standard therapy options seem to be exhausted up to now after the treatment of patients with these two therapy options. Therefore, it is important to have data that describes the therapy situation and prognosis after T-DM1 treatment. Methods The PRAEGNANT metastatic breast cancer registry (NCT02338167) is a prospective registry for breast cancer patients with a focus on molecular biomarkers. Patients of all therapy lines with any kind of treatment are eligible. Collected data comprises therapies, adverse events, quality of life and other patient reported outcomes. Here we report on the patient characteristics and descriptive prognostic data for HER2-positive patients who have completed a treatment with T-DM1. Therapy patterns after T-DM1 and progression-free survival are reported as well as overall survival. Results A total of 85 patients were identified for the study who were prospectively observed during therapy after the termination of T-DM1. The main reason for T-DM1 termination was progress. Following T-DM1, lapatinib, trastuzumab and chemotherapy were the main therapy choices. Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.2 - 6.3) and median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% CI: 15.5 - 21.3). Conclusions Therapy options after T-DM1 in a real-world setting seem to exhibit a relevant clinical efficacy, supporting the concept of continuous anti-HER2 treatments in the advanced therapy setting for breast cancer patients. Novel therapies are needed to improve the rather short median progression-free survival., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest J. E. received honoraria from Pfizer and Eisai for lectures and travel support and from Novartis for advisory boards. W. J. received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene, Johnson& Johnson. F. O. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Teva and MSD. H.-C. K. received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo and Genomic Health and owns stock of Theraclion and Phaon scientific. P. H. received honoraria, unrestricted educational grants and research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva and Pfizer and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer. J. E. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre and Teva and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, Teva and Pierre Fabre. D. L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Sanofi, Teva. M. W. received speaker honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Celgene and Novartis. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Novartis, Roche, Teva and Janssen-Cilag and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo and Eisai. M. W. B.’s institution received research funding from Novartis and Biontech. E. B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. P. W. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche, Teva, Eisai, Clovis and Tesaro and consultancy honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Clovis and Tesaro and research funding from Amgen, Novartis and Roche. C. H. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Oncovis, Roche and Pfizer. C. K. received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Teva, Novartis, MSD, Axios and Riemser. R. W. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Teva, MSD, Eisai, Genomic Health, Agendia, Prosigna, Amgen, Pierre Fabre and AstraZeneca. C. T. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. M. U. received honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre – all honoraria to the institution/employer. P. A. F. received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Celgene. His institution conducts research for Novartis. T. N. F. has participated on advisory boards for Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis and Pfizer. A. S. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH and promedicis GmbH. A. D. H. received honoraria from Genomic Health, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Lilly, GSK, Clovis, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

The approval of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) was conducted without pertuzumab as previous therapy. Efficacy data on T-DM1 following pertuzumab treatment are therefore limited. This study explores this issue in a real-world setting. Within the prospective PRAEGNANT (Prospective Academic Translational Research Network for the Optimization of the Oncological Health Care Quality in the Advanced Setting) metastatic breast cancer registry (NCT02338167), patients in all therapy lines receiving any kind of treatment were eligible for inclusion. This report describes patient characteristics and progression-free survival (PFS) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive patients receiving T-DM1 after pertuzumab treatment. Seventy-six patients were identified, 39 of whom received T-DM1 as second-line therapy, 25 as third-line, and 12 as fourth-line therapy or higher. Pertuzumab was mostly administered as a first-line treatment ( n = 61; 80.3%). The median PFS in all patients was 3.5 months (95% CI: 2.8-7.8); in second-line treatment, 7.7 months (95% CI: 2.8-11.0); in third-line, 3.4 months (95% CI: 2.3-not reached (NR)); and in fourth-line therapy or higher, 2.7 months (95% CI: 1.2-NR). T-DM1 was mainly administered second-line after pertuzumab, but also in more heavily pretreated patients. The PFS in higher therapy lines appears to be shorter than in second-line.

Purpose:  Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) is considered the standard assessment to diagnose sonographically visible suspicious breast mass lesions. Based on nonrandomized trials, the current German guidelines recommend at least three cylinders with ≤ 14-gauge needle biopsy. However, no recommendation is made as to how many specimens are needed with a smaller needle size, such as 16-gauge, or if biopsy with coaxial guidance improves diagnostic accuracy and quality. Therefore, in a prospective monocentric unblinded randomized controlled clinical noninferiority trial, the diagnostic accuracy of 16-gauge versus 14-gauge core needle biopsy, with and without coaxial guidance, was evaluated., Materials and Methods:  1065 breast biopsies were included in order to analyze the number of core samples necessary to obtain an appropriate rate of diagnostic quality adequate for histological evaluation, and to achieve high diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic yield. Histological results were verified by surgery or long-term follow-up of at least two years up to five years., Results:  In order to obtain an additive diagnostic accuracy of > 99 %, a minimum of two cylinders with 14-gauge biopsy were required. The diagnostic accuracy and the diagnostic quality of 14-gauge biopsy were not affected by the coaxial technique. When performing a 16-gauge biopsy, five cylinders were required to achieve an additive diagnostic accuracy of > 99 %. Without coaxial guidance, 16-gauge CNB required at least three samples, whereas five needle passes with coaxial-guided 16-gauge biopsy were needed., Conclusion:  The diagnostic accuracy and quality of ultrasound-guided 16-gauge core needle biopsy were inferior to the 14-gauge needle size, regardless of the use of a coaxial technique., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

The proper communication between gut and brain is pivotal for the maintenance of health and, dysregulation of the gut-brain axis can lead to several clinical disorders. In Parkinson's disease (PD) 85% of all patients experienced constipation many years before showing any signs of motor phenotypes. For differential diagnosis and preventive treatment, there is an urgent need for the identification of biomarkers indicating early disease stages long before the disease phenotype manifests. DJ-1 is a chaperone protein involved in the protection against PD and genetic mutations in this protein have been shown to cause familial PD. However, how the deficiency of DJ-1 influences the risk of PD remains incompletely understood. In the present study, we provide evidence that DJ-1 is implicated in shaping the gut microbiome including; their metabolite production, inflammation and innate immune cells (ILCs) development. We revealed that deficiency of DJ-1 leads to a significant increase in two specific genera/species, namely Alistipes and Rikenella. In DJ-1 knock-out (DJ-1 -/- ) mice the production of fecal calprotectin and MCP-1 inflammatory proteins were elevated. Fecal and serum metabolic profile showed that malonate which influences the immune system was significantly more abundant in DJ-1 -/- mice. DJ-1 appeared also to be involved in ILCs development. Further, inflammatory genes related to PD were augmented in the midbrain of DJ-1 -/- mice. Our data suggest that metabolites and inflammation produced in the gut could be used as biomarkers for PD detection. Perhaps, these metabolites and inflammatory mediators could be involved in triggering inflammation resulting in PD pathology.

This study evaluates quantitative combined single photon emission tomography/computed x-ray tomography (SPECT/CT) to assess the influence of radiotracer concentration on detection of sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) in endometrial cancer (EC). Eighty EC patients underwent pericervical 99m-Tc-nanocolloid injection followed by SPECT/CT. The subgroup of patients with failed SLN detection in SPECT/CT ( n = 20) was compared to match-paired patients showing at least two SLNs. Results of intraoperative gamma probe measurements and quantitative SPECT/CT were used for comparison. In patients with detection failure, the percentage of injected dose, absolute activity, and volume of the injection site were significantly lower (30 ± 24% vs. 55 ± 19%; p = 0.01, 43 ± 36 MBq vs. 73 ± 33 MBq; p = 0.04, and 183 ± 164 mL vs. 266 ± 164 mL; p = 0.03) while mean activity concentration in liver, spleen, and bone marrow was significantly higher ( p = 0.02). Activity concentration (>33 KBq/mL) and absolute activity (>73 MBq) of injection areas correlated with successful intraoperative SLN detection. In a subgroup of 19 SLNs, a correlation between SPECT/CT-derived uptake and intraoperative count rate was found (R 2 = 0.8; p < 0.001). SLN detection in EC patients depended on high radiotracer activity at the cervical injection site. Quantitative SPECT/CT could predict successful intraoperative SLN detection and may help to optimize injection technique.

A limited window of receptivity is a prerequisite of reproductive success. Indispensable receptivity genes include cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2), an enzyme accomplishing formation of prostaglandin E 2 (PGE 2 ). A powerful regulator of PGE 2 formation is Annexin A7 ( ANXA7 ). The present study thus explored whether ANXA7 impacts on implantation and fertility. Here we show that ANXA7 is expressed in endometrial tissue and increases upon decidual transformation of human endometrial stromal cells (HESCs) in a time-dependent manner. Silencing ANXA7 significantly decreased the expression of PRL and IGFBP1 , canonical decidual marker genes, but enhances COX2 and PGE 2 levels. Genetic knockout of AnxA7 in mice significantly increases the number of implantation sites and litter sizes. Further, analysis of human endometrial biopsies showed that ANXA7 transcript and protein levels are decreased during the midluteal window of implantation in women suffering from recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) when compared to subfertile patients. Taken together, the data indicate that ANXA7 has a conserved role in regulating endometrial receptivity and implantation., (Copyright © 2020 Alauddin, Salker, Umbach, Rajaxavier, Okumura, Singh, Wagner, Brucker, Wallwiener, Brosens and Lang.)

Uterus transplantation (UTx) can provide a route to motherhood for women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (MRKHS), a congenital disorder characterized by uterovaginal aplasia, but with functional ovaries. Based on our four successful living-donor transplantations and two resulting births, this analysis presents parameters relevant to standardizing recipient/donor selection, UTx surgery, and postoperative treatment, and their implementation in routine settings. We descriptively analyzed prospectively collected observational data from our four uterus recipients, all with MRKHS, their living donors, and the two newborns born to two recipients, including 1-year postnatal follow-ups. Analysis included only living-donor/recipient pairs with completed donor/recipient surgery. Two recipients, both requiring ovarian restimulation under immunosuppression after missed pregnancy loss in one case and no pregnancy in the other, each delivered a healthy boy by cesarean section. We conclude that parameters crucial to successful transplantation, pregnancy, and childbirth include careful selection of donor/recipient pairs, donor organ quality, meticulous surgical technique, a multidisciplinary team approach, and comprehensive follow-up. Surgery duration and blood vessel selection await further optimization, as do the choice and duration of immunosuppression, which are crucial to timing the first embryo transfer. Data need to be collected in an international registry due to the low prevalence of MRKHS.

Background: The Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, MRKHS, is a rare (orphan) disease characterized by the aplasia or hypoplasia of the uterus and the vagina. In women's health research, little is known as to how much care provision for patients with MRKHS takes into account their socio-demographic together with their clinical characteristics. This work examines the patients' socio-demographic characteristics, highlighting issues of inappropriate and deficient provision of care., Methods: The study was carried out as part of the larger TransCareO project and included a group of N=129 MRKHS patients who underwent surgery between 2008 and 2012. Using a specially developed questionnaire, we analyzed MRKHS patients' data found both in the clinical documentation of the Department for Women's Health, University Hospital of Tübingen and the patient surveys of the Center for Rare Genital Malformations (CRGM/ ZSGF). Patients who took part in interviews were compared with non-respondents., Results: Patient respondents and non-respondents did not differ as to the parameters of interest. In most cases, primary amenorrhea was reported as an admission reason. In 24% of patients, a medical intervention (hymenal incision or hormone treatment) already occurred before admission to the Center in Tübingen and proper diagnosis of MRKHS. About one third received in advance inappropriate treatment. During the therapy, more than half of the patients were in a solid partnership. 10% of the family anamneses documented the occurrence of urogenital malformations., Conclusions: Care provision for MRKHS patients is largely characterized by delayed proper diagnosis and in part, by inappropriate treatment attempts; there are also indications of regional differences. Anamnestic clues such as an asymptomatic amenorrhea or renal abnormalities of unclear origin still fail to result early enough in referral to a center on the basis of suspected MRKHS diagnosis. Urogenital malformations in the family are more common in patients than in the general population. For patients, a wide range of burdens are associated with the diagnosis. Abnormalities compared to their female peers occur, for instance, in the partnership status: MRKHS patients have more rarely a partner.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Introduction Scarring and volume reduction of the axillary space resulting in persistent lymphedema is a side effect of axillary treatment in breast cancer patients. The aim of this paper is to describe the reduction of lymphedema achieved with a turnover flap. Materials and Methods Between October 2016 and May 2018, five patients with grade 2 lymphedema following breast cancer therapy underwent reconstructive surgery with a turnover flap. Complete excision of the symptomatic axillary scar tissue followed by re-augmentation using a turnover flap was performed. Subsequently, all patients underwent breast reconstruction using a distant flap reconnected to the thoracodorsal vessels. The circumference of both arms, quality of life and pain were measured before and after surgery. Results An average reduction in pain in the ipsilateral arm from 6 to 1 on the numerical scale as well as an improvement in quality of life (2.8 vs. 7.0) was observed. A decrease in lymphedema especially in the upper arm was identified. No complications such as secondary bleeding, infections or flap loss were observed. Conclusion Complete removal of the axillary scar tissue after breast cancer treatment and re-augmentation of the axilla with a turnover flap results in a reduction in ipsilateral lymphedema and an improvement in pain and quality of life. We interpret these findings as a result of the physiological re-alignment of the lymphatic vessels combined with a lymph node-containing local transposition flap. Therefore, re-augmentation with a turnover flap could be an effective non-microsurgical alternative to lymph node transplantation., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) treatment is developing as a promising option for local anti-neoplastic treatment of dysplastic lesions and early intraepithelial cancer. Currently, high-frequency electrosurgical argon plasma sources are available and well established for clinical use. In this study, we investigated the effects of treatment with a non-thermally operated electrosurgical argon plasma source, a Martin Argon Plasma Beamer System (MABS), on cell proliferation and metabolism of a tissue panel of human cervical cancer cell lines as well as on non-cancerous primary cells of the cervix uteri. Similar to conventional CAP sources, we were able to show that MABS was capable of causing antiproliferative and cytotoxic effects on cervical squamous cell and adenocarcinoma as well as on non-neoplastic cervical tissue cells due to the generation of reactive species. Notably, neoplastic cells were more sensitive to the MABS treatment, suggesting a promising new and non-invasive application for in vivo treatment of precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions with non-thermally operated electrosurgical argon plasma sources.

Scope: Urolithin A (UA) is a gut-derived bacterial metabolite from ellagic acid found in pomegranates, berries, and nuts can downregulate cell proliferation and migration. Cell proliferation and cell motility require actin reorganization, which is under control of ras-related C3 botulinum toxin substrate 1 (Rac1) and p21 protein-activated kinase 1 (PAK1). The present study explores whether UA can modify actin cytoskeleton in cancer cells., Methods: The effect of UA on globular over filamentous actin ratio is determined utilizing Western blotting, immunofluorescence, and flow cytometry. Rac1 and PAK1 levels are measured by quantitative RT-PCR and immunoblotting. As a result, a 24 h treatment with UA (20 µm) significantly decreased Rac1 and PAK1 transcript levels and activity, depolymerized actin and wound healing. The effect of UA on actin polymerization is mimicked by pharmacological inhibition of Rac1 and PAK1. The effect is also mirrored by knock down using siRNA., Conclusion: UA leads to disruption of Rac1 and Pak1 activity with subsequent actin depolymerization and migration. Thus, use of dietary UA in cancer prevention or as adjuvant therapy is promising., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.)

LEFTY2 (endometrial bleeding associated factor; EBAF or LEFTYA), a cytokine released shortly before menstrual bleeding, is a negative regulator of cell proliferation and tumour growth. LEFTY2 down-regulates Na+/H+ exchanger activity with subsequent inhibition of glycolytic flux and lactate production in endometrial cancer cells. Glucose can be utilized not only for glycolysis but also for glycogen formation. Both glycolysis and glycogen formation require cellular glucose uptake which could be accomplished by the Na+ coupled glucose transporter-1 (SGLT1; SLC5A1). The present study therefore explored whether LEFTY2 modifies endometrial SGLT1 expression and activity as well as glycogen formation. Ishikawa and HEC1a cells were exposed to LEFTY2, SGLT1 and glycogen synthase (GYS1) transcript levels determined by qRT-PCR. SGLT1, GYS1 and phospho-GYS1 protein abundance was quantified by western blotting, cellular glucose uptake from 2-(N-(7-Nitrobenz-2-oxa-1,3-diazol-4-yl)Amino)-2-Deoxyglucose (2-NBDG) uptake, and cellular glycogen content utilizing an enzymatic assay and subsequent colorimetry. As a result, a 48-hour treatment with LEFTY2 significantly increased SGLT1 and GYS1 transcript levels as well as SGLT1 and GYS1 protein abundance in both Ishikawa and HEC1a cells. 2-NBDG uptake and cellular glycogen content were upregulated significantly in Ishikawa (type 1) but not in type 2 endometrial HEC1a cells, although there was a tendency of increased 2-NBDG uptake. Further, none of the effects were seen in human benign endometrial cells (HESCs). Interestingly, in both Ishikawa and HEC1a cells, a co-treatment with TGF-β reduced SGLT1, GYS and phospho-GYS protein levels, and thus reduced glycogen levels and again HEC1a cells had no significant change. In conclusion, LEFTY2 up-regulates expression and activity of the Na+ coupled glucose transporter SGLT1 and glycogen synthase GYS1 in a cell line specific manner. We further show the treatment with LEFTY2 fosters cellular glucose uptake and glycogen formation and TGF-β can negate this effect in endometrial cancer cells., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Mechanisms of intrinsic resistance of serous ovarian cancers to standard treatment with carboplatin and paclitaxel are poorly understood. Seventeen primary serous ovarian cancers classified as responders or nonresponders to standard treatment were screened with DigiWest protein array analysis for 279 analytes. Histone methyl transferase EZH2, an interaction partner of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), was found as one of the most significantly represented proteins in responsive tumors. Survival analysis of 616 patients confirmed a better outcome in patients with high EZH2 expression, but a worse outcome in patients with low EZH2 and high-ATM-expressing tumors compared with patients with low EZH2 and low-ATM-expressing tumors. A proximity ligation assay further confirmed an association between ATM and EZH2 in tumors of patients with an increased disease-free survival. Knockdown of EZH2 resulted in treatment-resistant cells, but suppression of both EZH2 and ATM, or ATM alone, had no effect. DigiWest protein analysis of EZH2-knockdown cells revealed a decrease in proteins involved in mitotic processes and checkpoint regulation, suggesting that deregulated ATM may induce treatment resistance. IMPLICATIONS: Ovarian cancer is a malignancy with high mortality rates, with to date, no successful molecular characterization strategies. Our study uncovers in a comprehensive approach the involvement of checkpoint regulation via ATM and EZH2, potentially providing a new therapeutic perspective for further investigations., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Non-invasive physical plasma (NIPP) generated by non-thermally operated electrosurgical argon plasma sources is a promising treatment for local chronic inflammatory, precancerous and cancerous diseases. NIPP-enabling plasma sources are highly available and medically approved. The purpose of this study is the investigation of the effects of non-thermal NIPP on cancer cell proliferation, viability and apoptosis and the identification of the underlying biochemical and molecular modes of action. For this, cervical cancer (CC) single cells and healthy human cervical tissue were analyzed by cell counting, caspase activity assays, microscopic and flow-cytometric viability measurements and molecular tissue characterization using Raman imaging. NIPP treatment caused an immediate and persisting decrease in CC cell growth and cell viability associated with significant plasma-dependent effects on lipid structures. These effects could also be identified in primary cells from healthy cervical tissue and could be traced into the basal cell layer of superficially NIPP-treated cervical mucosa. This study shows that NIPP treatment with non-thermally operated electrosurgical argon plasma devices is a promising method for the treatment of human mucosa, inducing specific molecular changes in cells., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Noninvasive epithelial tissue treatment with cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) is a promising option for local treatment of chronic inflammatory and precancerous lesions as well as various mucosal cancer diseases. Atmospheric pressure plasma jets (APPJ) are well-characterized and medically approved plasma sources. There are numbers of medically approved plasma sources for the treatment of epithelial diseases; however, little is known about the biochemical effects of CAP at the plasma-tissue interface. Furthermore, the actual penetration depth of CAP into tissue is currently unclear. Noninvasive and marker-independent Raman microspectroscopy was employed to assess the molecular effects of CAP on single cells and primary human cervical tissue samples. CAP treatment showed immediate and persisting changes of specific molecular tissue components determined by multivariate analysis. Raman imaging identified CAP-dependent changes in the morphology of the tissue, as well as molecular tissue components. The expression of the different components was not significantly altered within 24 h of incubation. DNA and lipids showed the strongest changes upon CAP treatment, which were traced to the basal cell layer of cervical epithelium, corresponding to an average functional plasma penetration depth of roughly 270 μm. In this study, Raman microspectroscopy is shown to be a promising method for molecular single-cell and solid tissue characterization. Regarding CAP treatment of tissues, Raman microspectroscopy could be suitable for the screening of biological mechanisms as well as for future contact- and marker-independent monitoring of plasma tissue effects.