Search

Background: Patients with breast cancer (BC) show strong interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), particularly for adverse effects of adjuvant endocrine treatment — e.g., with letrozole. Letrozole often induces myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, with potential noncompliance and treatment termination. This analysis investigated whether CAM before aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is associated with pain development and the intensity of AI-induced musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS) during the first year of treatment. Patients and methods: The multicenter phase IV PreFace study evaluated letrozole therapy in postmenopausal, hormone receptor–positive patients with early BC. Patients were asked about CAM use before, 6 months after, and 12 months after treatment started. They recorded pain every month for 1 year in a diary including questions about pain and numeric pain rating scales. Data were analyzed for patients who provided pain information for all time points. Results: Of 1396 patients included, 901 (64.5%) had used CAM before AI treatment. Throughout the observation period, patients with CAM before AI treatment had higher pain values, for both myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, than non-users. Pain increased significantly in both groups over time, with the largest increase during the first 6 months. No significant difference of pain increase was noted regarding CAM use. Conclusions: CAM use does not prevent or improve the development of AIMSS. Pain intensity was generally greater in the CAM group. Therefore, because of the risk of non-compliance and treatment discontinuation due to the development of higher pain levels, special attention must be paid to patient education and aftercare in these patients.

Background: Liquid Biopsy (LB) in the form of e.g., circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is a promising non-invasive approach to support current therapeutic cancer management. However, the proof of clinical utility of CTCs in informing therapeutic decision-making for e.g., breast cancer in clinical trials and associated translational research projects is facing the issues of low CTC positivity rates and low CTC numbers – even in the metastasized situation. To compensate for this dilemma, clinical CTC trials are designed as large multicenter endeavors with decentralized sample collection, processing and storage of products, making data management highly important to enable high-quality translational CTC research. Aim: In the DETECT clinical CTC trials we aimed at developing a custom-made, browser-based virtual database to harmonize and organize both decentralized processing and storage of LB specimens and to enable the collection of clinically meaningful LB sample. Methods: ViBiBa processes data from various sources, harmonizes the data and creates an easily searchable multilayered database. Results: An open-source virtual bio-banking web-application termed ViBiBa was created, which automatically processes data from multiple non-standardized sources. These data are automatically checked and merged into one centralized databank and are providing the opportunity to extract clinically relevant patient cohorts and CTC sample collections. Summary: ViBiBa, which is a highly flexible tool that allows for decentralized sample storage of liquid biopsy specimens, facilitates a solution which promotes collaboration in a user-friendly, federalist and highly structured way. The source code is available under the MIT license from https://vibiba.com or https://github.com/asperciesl/ViBiBa

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is becoming increasingly popular, particularly among patients with breast cancer. We have done a systematic review of studies published between 1995 and February 2005, identified through a comprehensive search. CAM encompasses a wide range of treatment modalities, including dietary and vitamin supplements, mind-body approaches, acupuncture, and herbal medicines. The objectives of CAM treatments are diverse: reduction of therapy-associated toxicity, improvement of cancer-related symptoms, fostering of the immune system and even direct anticancer effects. Clinical trials have generated few or no data on the efficacy of CAM, whether regarding disease recurrence, survival, overall quality of life or safety. Some CAM methods may even have adverse effects or reduce the efficacy of conventional treatment. The primary justification for CAM is based on empirical evidence, case studies, and hypothetical physiological effects. We conclude that␣available data on CAM modalities in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer does not support their application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

HER2 is one of the predominant therapeutic targets in breast cancer. The metastatic selection process may lead to discrepancies between the HER2 status of the primary tumor and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). This study analyzed the HER2 status of CTCs in patients with HER2-positive primary breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Aim of the study was to assess potential discordance of HER2 status between primary tumor and CTCs, as this may have important implications for the use of HER2-targeted therapy.The number and HER2 status of CTCs out of 30ml peripheral blood were assessed in 642 patients using the CellSearch System (Janssen Diagnostics, USA). The cutoff for CTC positivity was the presence of at least 1 CTC, and the cutoff for HER2 positivity of CTCs was the presence of at least 1 CTC with a strong HER2 staining.258 (40.2%) of the 642 patients were positive for CTCs (median 2; range 1-1,689). 149 (57.8%) of these 258 patients had at least 1 CTC with strong HER2 staining. The presence of HER2-positive CTCs was not associated with tumor size (p = 0.335), histopathological grading (p = 0.976), hormone receptor status (ER: p = 0.626, PR: p = 0.263) or axillary lymph node involvement (p = 0.430). Overall, 83 (32.2%) of the CTC-positive patients exclusively had CTCs with strong HER2 staining, whereas 31 (12.0%) had only CTCs with negative HER2 staining. Within-sample variation in the HER2 status of CTCs was found in 86 (57.8%) of the 149 patients with more than 1 CTC.This study demonstrated that discordance between the HER2 expression of CTCs and that of the primary tumor frequently occurs in early breast cancer. Future follow-up evaluation will assess whether this discrepancy may contribute to trastuzumab resistance.

The incidence of breast cancer has increased from 900 000 to 2.3 million new annual cases over the last 25 years. The 5-year survival rate has markedly risen to over 90% worldwide due to significant therapeutic advancements. Longer survival in patients with breast cancer means more patients may experience long-term effects of their treatments, including cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD). To date, there is no established primary prevention to minimise CTRCD. The Cardiac Health in Breast Cancer study is a two-arm, single-centre, randomised controlled trial investigating the impact of an exercise programme on cardiac changes in patients with breast cancer undergoing cardiotoxic cancer therapy. 48 females with breast cancer will be randomised to either a 12-month intervention group (IG) or a control group (CG). The IG will receive a combination of supervised high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and high-intensity resistance training (HIRT) for 6 months, while the CG will follow WHO guidelines for physical activity independently. All participants will undergo transthoracic echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and cardiopulmonary exercise testing at baseline, after 6 months and after 12 months. The primary endpoint is the occurrence of symptomatic or asymptomatic CTRCD at the time points of examination, detected by cardiac imaging, which may be mitigated by structured physical exercise. Secondary endpoints include assessments of cardiac inflammation as detected by CMR, mitochondrial dysfunction, health-related quality of life, the occurrence of fatigue, depression and anxiety, as well as exercise capacity, average heart rate, heart rate variability and daily physical activity., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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).)

Purpose: This study evaluates the restitution of pelvic floor function in postpartum women using the Restifem® pessary in a preventive and therapeutic approach., Methods: In this multicentre study all postpartum women independently of their parity, mode of delivery and existing pelvic floor symptoms were offered to use the Restifem® pessary from 6 weeks postpartum for 3 to 6 months. They completed the validated German pelvic floor questionnaire (GPFQpp) via online survey at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months postpartum and were divided, by their own choice, into users and non-users of the pessary., Results: Initially 857 women were enrolled. After 6 weeks 137 pessary users and 133 non-users, after 12 months 53 pessary users and 45 non-users submitted a completed questionnaire. Pessary users had significantly higher (worse) scores in all domains of the GPFQpp at 6 weeks postpartum. At 12 months postpartum pessary users still had a significantly higher bladder score, compared to non-users. There was a greater improvement in the bladder score (p = 0.005) and the pelvic organ prolapse score (p < 0.001) from 6 weeks to 12 months postpartum, among pessary users compared to non-users., Conclusion: Pessary users had a significantly greater improvement in pelvic floor function from 6 weeks to 12 months postpartum, compared to non-users. This effect might be in part due to wearing the pessary but also due to greater scope for recovery, given the higher level of pelvic floor dysfunction in the pessary user group., Trial Registration: The trial was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00024733) on 19 of April 2021., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Large language models (LLM) show potential for decision support in breast cancer care. Their use in clinical care is currently prohibited by lack of control over sources used for decision-making, explainability of the decision-making process and health data security issues. Recent development of Small Language Models (SLM) is discussed to address these challenges. This preclinical proof-of-concept study tailors an open-source SLM to the German breast cancer guideline (BC-SLM) to evaluate initial clinical accuracy and technical functionality in a preclinical simulation., Methods: A multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) is used as the gold-standard to assess the initial clinical accuracy in terms of concordance of the BC-SLM with MTB and comparing it to two publicly available LLM, ChatGPT3.5 and 4. The study includes 20 fictional patient profiles and recommendations for 5 treatment modalities, resulting in 100 binary treatment recommendations (recommended or not recommended). Statistical evaluation includes concordance with MTB in % including Cohen's Kappa statistic (κ). Technical functionality is assessed qualitatively in terms of local hosting, adherence to the guideline and information retrieval., Results: The overall concordance amounts to 86% for BC-SLM (κ = 0.721, p < 0.001), 90% for ChatGPT4 (κ = 0.820, p < 0.001) and 83% for ChatGPT3.5 (κ = 0.661, p < 0.001). Specific concordance for each treatment modality ranges from 65 to 100% for BC-SLM, 85-100% for ChatGPT4, and 55-95% for ChatGPT3.5. The BC-SLM is locally functional, adheres to the standards of the German breast cancer guideline and provides referenced sections for its decision-making., Conclusion: The tailored BC-SLM shows initial clinical accuracy and technical functionality, with concordance to the MTB that is comparable to publicly-available LLMs like ChatGPT4 and 3.5. This serves as a proof-of-concept for adapting a SLM to an oncological disease and its guideline to address prevailing issues with LLM by ensuring decision transparency, explainability, source control, and data security, which represents a necessary step towards clinical validation and safe use of language models in clinical oncology., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of the study was to describe the preventive option and safety of laparoscopic transabdominal emergency cerclage in pregnant women with advanced cervical shortening after failed vaginal cerclage or in whom vaginal cerclage is no longer possible., Method: Laparoscopic isthmo-cervical emergency cerclage was carried out in two patients at 13+0 and 15+5 weeks of gestation (GW) respectively. Both patients had cervical shortening and it was no longer possible to expose the cervix after conization or re-conization. The attempts to carry out transvaginal cerclage were unsuccessful. The technical aspects, feasibility, safety, and pregnancy outcomes after laparoscopic transabdominal cerclage are presented here, based on two case reports., Results: The cerclages were placed after blunt dissection of the uterine vessels and careful introduction of a KELLY forceps through the avascular space between the ascending and descending branches of the uterine vessels without using a needle. The operating times were 93 and 134 minutes (min), respectively. The estimated blood loss during the procedure was less than 50 ml and neither perioperative nor postoperative complications occurred. The subsequent course of both pregnancies was uneventful and fetal development in both cases was normal. In the first case, the baby was delivered by secondary cesarean section following premature rupture of membranes in week 35+4 of gestation. The baby had a birthweight of 2786 g, APGAR scores of 8/9/10 and an umbilical cord arterial pH of 7.36. In the second case, delivery was by primary cesarean section in week 39+5 of gestation. The infant had a birth weight of 4160 g, APGAR scores of 5/9/10 and an umbilical cord arterial pH of 7.20., Conclusion: Laparoscopic transabdominal cerclage is a safe and effective treatment option, even early in the second trimester of pregnancy, for patients in whom transvaginal cerclage is no longer possible due to anatomical factors. The method is technically very feasible and is associated with positive obstetric outcomes. The overall risk of perioperative complications is within acceptable limits., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict 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/).)

Purpose: More than a quarter of the German population has a migration background (MB). As various studies in the healthcare sector have already shown, ethnic background and migration status can have an influence on individual patient care. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether there are differences in utilization of out of pocket health-care services and the consultation situation in the context of prenatal care, taking into account migration status, acculturation and socio-demographic aspects., Methods: In the period from 01.03.21-01.03.22, a total of 511 women in childbed at the University Women's Hospital Ulm were interviewed in a retrospective survey using a standardized questionnaire translated into 9 languages and asked about their prenatal care. Due to the COVID pandemic, the study had to be terminated after one year., Results: Women with MB-particularly 1st generation migrant women-used significantly fewer out of pocket prenatal care services (p < 0.001) and felt less informed and counselled regarding costs and benefits of possible prenatal care examinations (p < 0.001) compared to women without MB. Consistent with these results, there were associations between the assimilation index (AI) of patients with MB and both utilization and perception of individual healthcare services., Conclusion: Our study indicates that even today there are still differences in the treatment and perception of various health services in the context of prenatal care between women with and those without MB., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: The current standard for the preoperative marking of non-palpable breast lesions is wire guided localization (WGL) which is associated with logistical efforts and patient discomfort. Non-radioactive seeds (NRS) recently challenged the use of WGL; but do they provide a better alternative from a logistical and environmental perspective?, Methods: WGL standard was compared with NRS available in Germany: Magseed®, Pintuition®, SAVI SCOUT ® and LOCalizer™ on a logistical and carbon-footprinting basis. In the logistical analysis the number of patient contacts with the healthcare system for lesion localization/removal and the number of breast punctures were evaluated in two different clinical scenarios (primary surgery and secondary surgery after neoadjuvant treatment). The carbon footprints of WGL and NRS (with exception of LOCalizer) were assessed based on their material compositions and operating energy in a streamlined approach., Results: Application of NRS reduces the number of contacts by 33.3 % (2 vs. 3) in primary, by 50 % (2 vs. 4) in secondary surgery, and the number of breast punctures by 33.3 % (2 vs.3). Annual Germany-wide material- and energy-based carbon footprints of NRS (1.6-3.2 tons CO 2 eq) are significantly lower in comparison to WGL (10.3 tons CO 2 eq). The implementation of NRS would lead to a CO 2 eq reduction by around 79 % compared to WGL., Conclusions: The use of NRS for the localization of non palpable breast lesions is more favorable from the environmental and logistical perspective, when compared to WGL with possible benefits for patients, healthcare providers and the environment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Thorsten Kuehn reports a relationship with Merit Medical Systems, Hologic, Sirius Medical Systems, and Endomag that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Fertility-preserving surgery (FPS) in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) is extremely rare and consequently, information about the pregnancies of these patients is anecdotal. Therefore, management of the pregnancy after AOC is challenging, especially if an unexpected situation arises. A 31-year-old nulliparous woman was admitted to our tertiary hospital in the 18th week of twin pregnancy with sudden severe abdominal pain. Her medical history included a low-grade AOC stage IIIc diagnosed 2 years before pregnancy and treated by debulking FPS and systemic therapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Clinical examination described normal vital signs and peritoneal irritation without any vaginal discharge. Sonography revealed free fluid in the pouch of Douglas and intact twin pregnancy. Laboratory work showed elevated leukocytes with neutrophilia. To evaluate appendicitis magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen was indicated. This revealed a uterine rupture with the now extra-cavitary position of the twins. Simultaneously, the patient's symptoms deteriorated, and emergency surgery was necessary where hemoperitoneum with avital fetuses were present. Despite excessive blood loss the uterus could be repaired and preserved. Previous resection of the uterine serosa during her debulking FPS, administration of bevacizumab affecting smooth muscles, and overstretching the uterus in the twin pregnancy were considered as possible risk factors for the presenting uterine rupture. Pregnancy after AOC is possible but should be monitored closely, especially due to the hidden long-term consequences of its therapy. In the differential diagnosis of sudden abdominal pain during pregnancy uterine rupture should be considered even in patients with an unscared uterus., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Introduction: The third-generation antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) and sacituzumab govitecan (SG), recently obtained approval for metastatic breast cancer treatment across various subtypes and therapeutic contexts., Materials and Methods: This retrospective, multicentric study evaluated real-world tolerability, feasibility and efficacy in a pre-treated, real-world cohort at three major German breast cancer centers., Results: 125 patients treated with T-DXd or SG from November 2020 to June 2023 were included (T-DXd: 77 patients; SG: 48 patients). The median treatment duration was 6.0 months for T-DXd and 3.5 months for SG therapy, with a median follow-up duration of 10.4 months for T-DXd (95% CI: 8.4-11.6) and 11.8 months for SG (95% CI: 8.0-14.4). Severe neutropenia (CTC ≥ III°) occurred in 33.3% during SG therapy, with a numerical reduction observed following primary, prophylactic use of G-CSF. T-DXd-associated pneumonitis occurred in 8 out of 77 patients (10.4 %). Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.8-12.4) with T-DXd (HER2+: 10.8; HER2-low: 4.7) and 4.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-6.3) with SG (TNBC 4.9; HR+/HER2-: not reached). Median overall survival (OS) was 23.8 months (95% CI: 16.1-not estimable) with T-DXd (HER2+: 27.1; HER2-low: not reached), and 12.4 months (95% CI: 8.7-not estimable) with SG therapy (TNBC: 12.4, HR+/HER2-: not reached). 95.7% of the protocol-specified, therapeutic dose was administered for T-DXd and 89.6% for SG., Conclusion: Overall, this indicates good feasibility, tolerability, and effectiveness of ADC therapies in the real-world setting., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest H. Schäffler: Travel Support by Daiichi Sankyo and Gilead, Honoraria by Novartis; D. Jakob: none; S. Huesmann: none; K. Pfister: Honoraria by Pfizer Novartis and Gilead; K. Veselinovic: Honoraria by Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; F. Schochter: Travel Support, Honoraria and Consulting Fees by AstraZeneca, Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, Clovis; E. Leinert: none; V. Fink: none; B. Rack: Honoraria and research funding by AstraZeneca and Novartis; A. Englisch: none; L. Volmer: none; T. Engler: Travel Support, Honoraria and Consulting Fees by AstraZeneca, GSK, Gilead, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Stemline, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo; ML. Frevert: Honoraria by Novartis; I. Juhasz-Böss: none; S. Brucker: Travel Support and Consulting Fees by Hologic, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Medtronic, Pfizer; S. Heublein: research funding and honoraria from Clovis Oncology, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Participation in advisory boards for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation; W. Janni: Travel Support, Honoraria and Consulting Fees by Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead; FA. Taran: Travel Support by Gilead, Consulting Fees by AstraZeneca, Gilead, MSD, ImmunoGen, Onkowissen, Roche, GSK; A. Hartkopf: Travel Support by Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Honoraria by Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Seagen, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Novartis; D. Dannehl: Travel Support by Gilead and Daiichi Sankyo, Honoraria by Gilead., (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/).)

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.)

Background The preparation of multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings can be time-consuming. In addition to the clinical data being available digitally in subsystems, the preparation of more complex cases requires literature research. Several expert systems have been developed to support this process. However, the interaction with these systems has to be trained. Current development enables linguistic interaction with such artificial intelligence (AI) systems. To the best of our knowledge, these have not been tested as premedical screening tools for MDT. Methods This is a retrospective consecutive case series of 10 cervical cancer cases comparing the medical recommendations of the MDT and artificial intelligence (AI) on a low level (i.e., surgery, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy). Results The clinical cases ranged from primary diagnosis via suspected recurrence to palliative settings. The AI repeatedly stated that medical professionals need to be consulted before treatment decisions. The AI answers ranged from no agreement to overachievement by mentioning treatment options for preexisting risk factors (such as obesity). In standard cases, the AI answer matched well with the expert recommendations. In some cases, the AI answers were contrary to our treatment recommendation. Conclusion The interaction with current language AIs is temptingly easy, and the replies are very understandable. Despite the AI warning regarding medical recommendations in the majority of our cases, there was a good match with the MDT recommendations. However, in some cases, the medical evidence behind the answers was missing or in the worst case fictional. In our case series, the AI did not meet the requirements to support a clinical MDT meeting by prescreening the therapeutic options. However, it did exceed the expectations regarding the risk factors of the patients., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Ebner et al.)

Objectives: The debate about the safest birth mode for breech presentation at term remains unresolved. The comparison of a vaginal breech birth (VBB) with an elective caesarean section (CS) regarding fetal outcomes favors the CS. However, the question of whether attempting a VBB is associated with poorer fetal outcomes is examined in this study. Additionally, the study evaluates factors contributing to a successful VBB and illustrates possible errors in VBB management., Study Design: We performed a retrospective analysis of term breech births over 15 years in a Perinatal Center Level I regarding fetal, maternal, and obstetric outcomes by comparing successful with unsuccessful VBB attempt and all attempted VBB vs. CS including a multivariate analysis of predictors for a successful VBB. A root cause analysis of severe adverse events (SAE) was conducted to evaluate factors leading to poorer fetal outcomes in VBB., Results: Of 863 breech cases, in 78 % a CS was performed and in 22 % a VBB was attempted, with 57 % succeeding. Comparing successful with unsuccessful VBB attempts, successful VBB showed significantly lower maternal blood loss (p < 0.001) but poorer umbilical arterial pH (UApH) (p < 0.001), while other fetal outcome parameters showed no significant differences. Predictive factors for a successful VBB attempt were a body mass index (BMI) below 30.0 kg/m 2 (p = 0.010) and multiparity (p = 0.003). Comparing all attempted VBB to CS, maternal blood loss was significantly higher in CS (p < 0.001), while fetal outcomes were significantly worse in VBB attempts, included poorer Apgar scores (p < 0.001), poorer UApH values (p < 0.001), higher transfer rate to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) (p < 0.001) and higher rate of respiratory support in the first 24 h (p = 0.003)., Conclusion: The failed attempt of VBB indicates significantly worse UApH without lower Apgar scores or higher transfer rate to the NICU. The likelihood of a successful VBB is 9% lower with obesity and 2.5 times higher in multiparous women. Attempting a VBB should include detailed pre-labor counseling, regarding predictive success factors, an experienced team, and consistent management during birth., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

GAIN-2 trial evaluated the optimal intense dose-dense (idd) strategy for high-risk early breast cancer. This study reports the secondary endpoints pathological complete response (pCR) and overall survival (OS). Patients (n = 2887) were randomized 1:1 between idd epirubicin, nab-paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (iddEnPC) versus leukocyte nadir-based tailored regimen of dose-dense EC and docetaxel (dtEC-dtD) as adjuvant therapy, with neoadjuvant therapy allowed after amendment. At median follow-up of 6.5 years (overall cohort) and 5.7 years (neoadjuvant cohort, N = 593), both regimens showed comparable 5-year OS rates (iddEnPC 90.8%, dtEC-dtD 90.0%, p = 0.320). In the neoadjuvant setting, iddEnPC yielded a higher pCR rate than dtEC-dtD (51.2% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.045). Patients achieving pCR had significantly improved 5-year iDFS (88.7% vs. 70.1%, HR 0.33, p < 0.001) and OS rates (93.9% vs. 83.1%, HR 0.32, p < 0.001), but OS outcomes were comparable regardless of pCR status. Thus, iddEnPC demonstrates superior pCR rates compared to dtEC-dtD, yet with comparable survival outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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).)

The Breast Committee of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (German Gynecological Oncology Group, AGO) presents the 2024 update of the evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer., Competing Interests: Prof. Dr. med. Marc Thill was a member of advisory board Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Becton/Dickinson, Biom‘Up, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, pfm medical, Pierre Fabre, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen, Sirius Medical, and Sysmex; received manuscript support from Amgen, ClearCut, Clovis, Organon, pfm medical, Roche, and Servier; received travel expenses from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MCI, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, RTI Surgical, and Seagen; received congress support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sanyko, Gilead, Hexal, Lilly, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sirius Medical; has received lecture honoraria from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Connect Medica, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gedeon Richter, Gilead Science, GSK, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Jörg Eickeler, Laborarztpraxis Walther et al. Lilly, MCI, Medscape, MSD, Medtronic, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, Seagen, StreamedUp, Stemline, Sysmex, Vifor, Viatris, and ZP Therapeutics; has received trial funding from Endomag, Exact Sciences; and received trial honoraria (institutional) from AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Cairn Surgical, Celgene, Clearcut, Neodynamics, Novartis, pfm medical, Roche, and RTI Surgical. Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Janni has received research grants and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactScience, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Roche, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Inivata, and Guardant Health. Prof. Dr. med. Ute-Susann Albert has received lectures from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, was a member of advisory board Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. Prof. Dr. Malgorzata Banys-Paluchowski has received honoraria for lectures and advisory from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Amgen, Stemline, Samsung, Canon, MSD, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Medical, Syantra, Pierre Fabre, and ExactSciences; received study support from EndoMag, Mammotome, MeritMedical, Gilead, Hologic, and ExactSciences; and received travel/congress support from Eli Lilly, ExactSciences, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Dr. med. Ingo Bauerfeind has received honoraria and travel reimbursement from Brustkrebs Deutschland e.V., Krankenhaus Kempten, Akademie für Psychoonkologie, IF-Kongress Management. Prof. Dr. med. Jens-Uwe Blohmer has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Wilfried Budach has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Merck, BMS, Jörg Eickeler Veranstaltungen, medpublico GmbH, and BVDST. Prof. Dr. med. Peter Dall has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Novartis, Pierre Fabré, MSD, Lilly, and AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. Nina Ditsch was a member of advisory boards and speakers bureaus AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, BGGF, Daiichi Sankyo, Elsevier Verlag, ESO, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GSK, if-Kongress, KelCon, Leopoldina Schweinfurt, Lilly, Lukon, Molekular Health, MSD, Novartis, onkowissen, Pfizer, RG-Ärztefortbildungen, Roche, and Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Eva Maria Fallenberg has received research grant from DFG and speaker honorarium from GE Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Guerbet, Siemens, BD, Roche, EUSOBI, ESOR, ESMO, and B-Rayz. Prof. Dr. med. Peter A. Fasching participate on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, and Mylan; has received honoraria for lecture, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, and Mylan; and has received consulting from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, and Mylan. Medical Writing: Merck, to institution: Biontech, Cepheid, Pfizer. Prof. Dr. med. Tanja N. Fehm has receiverd honoraria from Onkowissen. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Friedrich was a member of advisory board: Gilead Sciences has received other honoraria from Roche, MSD. Prof. Dr. med. Bernd Gerber has received travel support from Pfizer. PD Dr. med. Oleg Gluz has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sanyko, Eisai, Gilead Science, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Agendia, MedConcept, and GynUpdate, Minority share holder: Westdeutsche Studiengruppe (WSG). Prof. Nadia Harbeck, MD has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Viatris, and Zuelligpharma; received other from Co-Director West German Study Group (WSG). Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Daniel Hartkopf has received honoraria for consulting and speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Agendia, Amgen, Clovis, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactScience, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Stemline, and Verazyte. Prof. Dr. med. Jens Huober has received honoraria for lectures from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, and Daiichi; has received honoraria for consulting/advisory board from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Daiichi, and Gilead; and has received travel grants from Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi, and Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Christian Jackisch was a member of advisory board Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Seagen and received lecture from Art tempi, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Exact Sciences, MSD, GynUpdate, and StreamedUp. Prof. Dr. med. Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke was a member of advisory board: SeaGen, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Agendia, Gilead, and Onkowissen; has received lecture from NOGGO, CECOG, PINK, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Lilly, SeaGen, and Daiichi Sankyo; received other honoraria from Gilead Science and POMME; and stockholding Theraclion SA. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Heinrich Kreipe was a member of advisory board: Lilly; has received lecture from AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer. PD Dr. David Krug has received lecture from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, onkowissen, med update; was a member of advisory board: Gilead; and has received research funding from Merch KGaA and Deutsche Krebshilfe. Prof. Dr.med. Thorsten Kühn was a member of advisory board/lecture Sysmex, Neodynamics, Pfizer, MSD, Merit Medical, Sirius Medical, Hologic, Endomag, Lilly; and has received trial funding from Merit Medical, Endomag, Mammotome. Prof. Dr. med. Sherko Kümmel has received lecture from Roche, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Agendia; Hologic, PINK!, and Stemline; has received other honoraria from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sonoscape; was a member of advisory board Lilly, MSD, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Stemline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, and Exact Science. Prof. Dr. med. Sibylle Loibl was a member of advisory board, institutional: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead Science, Lilly, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeuticas, Puma, Roche, Seagen, and Stemline-Menarini; invited speaker, personal: Medscape; and has received trial funding/others from Astra Zeneca, Abbvie, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, GSK, Immunomedics/Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline-Menarini, and VM Scope GmbH. Prof. Dr. med. Diana Lüftner D.L. has received honoraria for advisory board activities and/or oral presentations from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, high5md, Loreal, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and TEVA. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Patrick Lux 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. Prof. Dr. med. Nicolai Maass was a member of advisory board Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen has received lecture from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Mundhenke was a member of advisory board AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, and Novartis and has received lecture from Pfizer and Novartis. Prof. Dr. med. Toralf Reimer has received trial funding from German Cancer Aid and Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftungwas a member of advisory board MSD, Novartis, and Myriad; and has received lecture from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Kerstin Rhiem has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, streamed up. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Rody was a member of advisory board AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Seagen, Amgen, MSD, Gilead; has received lecture from Pfizer, Celgene, Eisai; and has received trial funding from Eisai. Prof. Dr. med. Marcus Schmidt M.S. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GILEAD, Lilly, Menarini-Stemline, Molecular Health, MSD, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen, His institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, Genentech, German Breast Group, Novartis, Palleos, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pierre Fabre, and SeaGen. In addition, he has a patent for EP 2390370 B1 and a patent for EP 2951317 B1 issued. Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Schneeweiss has received research grants from Celgene, Roche; has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, ClinSol, Clovis Oncology, coma UroGyn, Connectmedica, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, if-kongress, I-MED, iOMEDICO, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, med publico, Metaplan, MSD, Mylan, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, promedicis, Roche, Seagen, streamedup, and Tesaro; and has received travel support from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Florian Schütz has received lecture from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactSciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, ClinSol, Pfizer, and Roche Pharma; was a member of advisory board Lilly, MSD, Gilead, Atheneum Partners, and ClinSol; and received travel expenses from Lilly, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Peter Sinn was a member of advisory board Astra Zeneca, Exact Sciences, and Daiichi Sankyo; has received lecture from AstraZeneca and Diacentus; and has received trial funding from AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Christine Solbach has received lecture from DiaLog Service GmbH, Jörg Eickeler, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MedConcept, I-Med, GBG, BVF Akademie, and LÄK Hessen Akademie was a member of advisory board: MSD, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Erich Solomeyer has received honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Celgen, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Storz, Erbe, Gedeon Richter, Eisai, Medac, MSD, Vifor, Teva, Ethikon, Johnson Johnson, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Exact Sciences, GSK, and Pierre Fabre. Prof. Dr. med. Elmar Stickeler was a member of advisory boards Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Gilead, Iomedico, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, and Roche and received lecture from Astra Zeneca, BSH Düsseldorf, Gilead, Iomedico, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, PharmaMar, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Thomssen has received compensation for advisory boards, lectures or publications from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Daiichi Sankyo, Forum Sanitas, Gilead, Jörg Eickeler, Hexal, Lilly, Medupdate, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Untch M. U. has received honoraria to travel support, lectures, and consulting or advisory role from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi Aventis, Myriad, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Stemline, Genzyme, Agendia, Onkowissen, and Eisai, all honoraria and fees to the employer/institution. Prof. Dr. Isabell Witzel has received lecture from Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer and Novartis, and Onkowissen and has received Travel support from Roche and Lilly. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Wöckel has received compensation for advisory boards, lectures, trial funding advisory board from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Celgene, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Sirtex, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Clovis, Organon, Daiji Sankyo, Seagen, Stemline, and Gilead. PD. Dr. Rachel Würstlein served as advisor, consultant, speaker, and travel grant Agendia, Amgen, Apogepha, Aristo, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Esteve, Exact Sciences, Gilead, 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, and MediSeminar. Prof. Dr. med. Volkmar Müller has received speaker honoraria Astra Zeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, and i-MED Institute; has received consultancy honoraria from Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, and Stemline; has received institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, and Astra Zeneca; and has received travel grants from Astra Zeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Gilead. Prof. Dr. Tjoung-Won Park-Simon has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead Science, NCO, Onkowissen, Exact Sciences, and Seagen and has received travel compensation from Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre. Prof. Dr. med. Jörg Heil has none to declare., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: To summarize the radiotherapy-relevant statements of the 18th St. Gallen Breast Cancer Consensus Conference and interpret the findings in light of German guideline recommendations., Methods: Statements and voting results from the 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference were collected and analyzed according to their relevance for the radiation oncology community. The voting results were discussed in two hybrid meetings among the authors of this manuscript on March 18 and 19, 2023, in light of the German S3 guideline and the 2023 version of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) guidelines., Results and Conclusion: There was a high level of agreement between the radiotherapy-related statements of the 18th St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Consensus Conference and the German S3 and AGO guidelines. Discrepancies include the impact of number of lymph node metastases for the indication for postmastectomy radiotherapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The experience of birth is an emotional challenge for women. Traumatic birth experiences can cause psychological stress symptoms up to post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD), with impact on women's wellbeing. Primarily unplanned interventions can trigger birth-mode-related traumatization. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether an emergency cesarean section (ECS) is the most traumatizing., Methods: A retrospective case-control study was undertaken. Therefore, data were collected by standardized questionnaires (Impact of Event Scale-Revised and City Birth Trauma Scale) that were sent to women with singleton pregnancies > 34 weeks of gestation who either give birth by ECS (case group, n = 139), unplanned cesarean section (UCS), operative vaginal birth (OVB), or natural birth (NB) (three control groups, n = 139 each). The investigation period was 5 years., Results: Overall, 126 of 556 (22%) sent questionnaires were returned and could be analyzed (32 ECS, 38 UCS, 36 OVB, and 20 NB). In comparison to other birth modes, women with ECS were associated with a higher degree of traumatization as revealed by statistically significant differences regarding the DSM-5 criteria intrusion and stressor. In addition, women who underwent ECS declared more frequently a demand for professional debriefing compared to other birth modes., Discussion: ECS is associated with more post-traumatic stress symptoms compared to other birth modes. Therefore, early interventions are recommended to reduce long-term psychological stress reactions. In addition, outpatient follow-ups by midwives or emotional support programs should be implemented as an integral component of postpartum debriefings., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Each year the interdisciplinary AGO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie, German Gynecological Oncology Group) Breast Committee on Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer provides updated state-of-the-art recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer., Methods: The updated evidence-based treatment recommendations for early and metastatic breast cancer have been released in March 2024., Results and Conclusion: This paper concisely captures the updated recommendations for early breast cancer chapter by chapter., Competing Interests: Prof. Dr. Tjoung-Won Park-Simon has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Roche, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, ExactSciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead Science, NCO, Onkowissen, Exact Sciences, Seagen. Travel compensation: Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, and Pierre Fabre. Prof. Dr. med. Ute-Susann Albert has received honoraria for lectures from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and is a member of advisory board Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer. Prof. Dr. Malgorzata Banys-Paluchowski has received honoraria for lectures and advisory from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Amgen, Stemline, Samsung,Canon, MSD, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Medical, Syantra, Pierre Fabre, ExactSciences, study support from EndoMag, Mammotome, Merit Medical, Gilead, Hologic, ExactSciences, and travel/congress support from Eli Lilly, ExactSciences, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Jens-Uwe Blohmer has received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures: AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Wilfried Budach has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards: Merck, BMS, Jörg Eickeler Veranstaltungen, med publico GmbH, BVDST. Prof. Dr. med. Peter Dall has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from Novartis, Pierre Fabré, MSD, Lilly, AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. Nina Ditsch was a member of advisory boards and speakers bureaus: AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, BGGF, Daiichi-Sankyo, Elsevier Verlag, ESO, Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, GSK, if-Kongress, KelCon, Leopoldina Schweinfurt, Lilly, Lukon, Molekular Health, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, RG-Ärztefortbildungen, Roche, Seagen. Prof. Dr. med. Eva Maria Fallenberg has received research grant from DFG and received speaker honorarium from GE Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Guerbet, Siemens, BD, Roche, EUSOBI, ESOR, ESMO, B-Rayz. Prof. Dr. med. Peter A. Fasching: participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, Mylan, has received honoraria for lecture, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, Mylan, consulting from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Eisai, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, Mylan. Medical Writing: Merck. To institution: Biontech, Cepheid, Pfizer. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Friedrich is a member of the advisory board Gilead Sciences and has received other honoraria from Roche, MSD. Prof. Dr. med. Bernd Gerber has received travel support from Pfizer. PD Dr. med. Oleg Gluz has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sanyko, Eisai, Gilead Science, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Agendia, MedConcept, GynUpdate, and minority share holder: Westdeutsche Studiengruppe (WSG). Prof. Nadia Harbeck, MD has received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Viatris, Zuelligpharma, other are Co-Director West German Study Group (WSG). Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Daniel Hartkopf has received honoraria for consulting and speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Agendia, Amgen, Clovis, DaichiiSankyo, Eisai, Exact Science, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Stemline, and Verazyte. Prof. Dr. med. Jens Huober has received honoraria for lectures: Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Daiichi and honoraria for consulting/advisory board: Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Daiichi, Gilead and received travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Christian Jackisch is a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Roche, GSK, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen; Lecture: Art tempi, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Exact Sciences, MSD, GynUpdate, StreamedUp. Prof. Dr. med. Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke is a member of advisory board: SeaGen, Exact Sciences, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, Agendia, Gilead, Onkowissen, has received honoraria for lectures from NOGGO, CECOG, PINK, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Lilly, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo. Other: Gilead Science, POMME. Stockholding: Theraclion SA. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Heinrich Kreipe is a member of advisory board: Lilly, has received honoraria for lecture: AstraZeneca, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer. PD Dr. David Krug has received honoraria for lecture from Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Onkowissen, med update is a member of advisory board: Gilead, has received research funding from Merch KGaA, Deutsche Krebshilfe. Prof. Dr. med. Thorsten Kühn is a member of advisory board/lecture: Sysmex, Neodynamics, Pfizer, MSD, Merit Medical, Sirius Medical, Hologic, Endomag, Lilly has received trial funding from Merit Medical, Endomag, Mammotome. Prof. Dr. med. Sherko Kümmel has received honoraria for lecture: Roche, Lilly, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Agendia; Hologic, PINK!; Stemline, other honoraria from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Sonoscape, is a member of advisory board: Lilly, MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Stemline, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Seagen, Gilead, Exact Science. Prof. Dr. med. Sibylle Loibl is a member of advisory board, institutional: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, DSI, Eirgenix, GSK, Gilead Science, Lilly, Novartis, Olema, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Relay Therapeuticas, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Stemline-Menarini, invited speaker, personal: Medscape received trial funding/others from: AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Greenwich Life Sciences, GSK, Immunomedics/Gilead, Molecular Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline-Menarini, VM Scope GmbH. Prof. Dr. med. Diana Lüftner has received honoraria for advisory board activities and/or oral presentations from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, high5md, Loreal, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche and TEVA. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Patrick Lux 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. Prof. Dr. med. Nicolai Maass was a member of advisory board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen and has received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Mundhenke was a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Novartis, has received honoraria for lecture: Pfizer, Novartis. Prof. Dr. med. Toralf Reimer has received trial funding from German Cancer Aid and Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftung, is a member of advisory board: MSD, Novartis, Myriad lecture from: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Rody was a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Roche, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Lilly, Seagen, Amgen, MSD, Gilead, lecture Pfizer, Celgene, Eisai, has received trial funding from Eisai. Prof. Dr. med. Marcus Schmidt reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GILEAD, Lilly, Menarini-Stemline, Molecular Health, MSD, Novartis, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and SeaGen, his institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, Genentech, German Breast Group, Novartis, Palleos, Pantarhei Bioscience, Pierre Fabre, and SeaGen. In addition, he has a patent for EP 2390370 B1 and a patent for EP 2951317 B1 issued. Prof. Dr. med. Andreas Schneeweiss has received research grants from Celgene, Roche, honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, ClinSol, Clovis Oncology, coma UroGyn, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, if-kongress, I-MED, iOMEDICO, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, med publico, Metaplan, MSD, Mylan, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, promedicis, Roche, Seagen, StreamedUp, and Tesaro, received travel support from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Florian Schütz has received honoraria for lecture Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, ExactSciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, ClinSol, Pfizer, Roche Pharma, was a member of advisory board: Lilly, MSD, Gilead, Atheneum Partners, ClinSol, has received travel expenses from Lilly, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Hans-Peter Sinn was a member of advisory board: AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, has received honoraria for lecture from AstraZeneca, Diacentus, has received trial funding from AstraZeneca. Prof. Dr. med. Christine Solbach has received honoraria for lecture: DiaLog Service GmbH, Jörg Eickeler, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MedConcept, I-Med, GBG, BVF Akademie, LÄK Hessen Akademie, was a member of advisory board: MSD, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Elmar Stickeler was a member of advisory boards Amgen, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Iomedico, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, Roche; has received honoraria for lecture: AstraZeneca, BSH Düsseldorf, Gilead, Iomedico, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche. Prof. Dr. med. Christoph Thomssen: compensation for advisory boards, lectures or publications. Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Daiichi-Sankyo, Forum Sanitas, Gilead, Jörg Eickeler, Hexal, Lilly, med update, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. Prof. Dr. med. Michael Untch has received honoraria to travel support, lectures, and consulting or advisory role from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi-Aventis, Myriad, Seagen, Novartis, Gilead, Stemline, Genzyme, Agendia, Onkowissen, Eisai, all honoraria and fees to the employer/institution. Prof. Dr. Isabell Witzel has received honoraria for lecture: AstraZeneca, Lilly, Seagen, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer and Novartis, Onkowissen. travel support from Roche and Lilly. Prof. Dr. med. Achim Wöckel compensation for advisory boards, lectures, trial funding Advisory board: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Celgene, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Sirtex, MSD, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Clovis, Organon, Daiji Sankyo, Seagen, Stemline, Gilead. PD. Dr. Rachel Würstlein served as advisor, consultant, speaker, and travel grant from Agendia, Amgen, Apogepha, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Esteve, Exact Sciences, Gilead, 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. Prof. Dr. med. Volkmar Müller has received speaker honoraria from: AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, iMED Institute, consultancy honoraria from 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 form AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead. Prof. Dr. med. Wolfgang Janni has received research grants and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Science, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, Pfizer, Seagen, Gilead, Inivata, Guardant Health. Prof. Dr. med. Marc Thill is a member of advisory board: Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Becton/Dickinson, Biom‘Up, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Pierre Fabre, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen, Sirius Medical, Sysmex, has received manuscript support from Amgen, ClearCut, Clovis, Organon, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, has received travel expenses from Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clearcut, Clovis, Connect Medica, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Lilly, MCI, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Roche, RTI Surgical, Seagen; Congress support: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sanyko, Gilead, Hexal, Lilly, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sirius Medical; Lecture honoraria: Amgen, Art Tempi, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Connect Medica, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Gedeon Richter, Gilead Science, GSK, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Jörg Eickeler, Laborarztpraxis Walther et al., Lilly, MCI, Medscape, MSD, Medtronic, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, pfm medical, Roche, Seagen, StreamedUp, Stemline, Sysmex, Vifor, Viatris, ZP Therapeutics has received trial funding from Endomag, Exact Sciences, and trial honoraria from AstraZeneca, Biom’Up, Celgene, Clearcut, Neodynamics, Novartis, pfm medical, Roche, RTI Surgical. Prof. Dr. med. Jörg Heil: none to disclose. Dr. I. Bauerfeind received speaker honoraria from Brustkrebs Deutschland e.V., Krankenhaus Kempten, Akademie für Psychoonkologie, IF Kongressmanagement. Prof. Dr. med. Kerstin Rhiem received honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, streamed up. Prof. Dr. med. Tanja N. Fehm received honoraria for lectures from Onkowissen. Prof. Dr. med. Erich-Franz Solomayer received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Roche, Amgen, Celgen, Tesaro, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Storz, Erbe, Gedeon Richter, Eisai, Medac, MSD, Vifor, Teva, Ethikon, Johnson Johnson, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Exact Sciences, GSK, Pierre Fabre., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Following the positive iDFS and OS results of the phase III clinical trials monarchE, NATALEE and OlympiA, new oral anticancer agents (the CDK4/6 inhibitors abemaciclib, ribociclib as well as the PARP inhibitor olaparib) have recently been introduced into the treatment of high-risk early breast cancer (eBC). However, only few male patients were included in these trials (0.4%, 0.6% and 0.3%, respectively). The objective of this real-world analysis was to determine the proportion of male patients with eBC fulfilling the clinical high-risk criteria of above-mentioned trials., Patients and Methods: We conducted a data inquiry and analysis with the Cancer Registry of Baden-Württemberg of men with breast cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021. Men with eBC were identified and the number of patients at clinical high-risk according to the inclusion criteria of monarchE, NATALEE and OlympiA was assessed., Results: Of 397 men with eBC, 354 (89.1%) had a HR + /Her2- and 4 (1.0%) a triple-negative subtype. 84 patients (21.2%) met the clinical high-risk criteria according to the monarchE, 189 (47.6%) those according to the NATALEE and 50 (12.6%) those according to the OlympiA trial., Conclusion: In a large real-world sample, more men with eBC are at clinical high risk according to the inclusion criteria of monarchE, NATALEE and OlympiA than would be expected in women. This is most likely due to more advanced stages at initial diagnosis in men. To evaluate whether CDK4/6 and PARP inhibitors improve prognosis also in men should be the topic of future real- world analyses., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Clinical evidence is interpreted based on clinical studies and personal experience which can lead to different interpretations of data. This makes the opinions issued by panels of experts such as the Advanced Breast Cancer Panel which convened in November 2023 for the seventh time (ABC7) particularly important. At the conference, current issues around advanced breast cancer were evaluated by an international team of experts. In 2023 the data on CDK4/6 inhibitors was so extensive that the answers to questions about the sequencing of therapy and the potential use of chemotherapy as an alternative therapy were relatively clear. Moreover, data on antibody drug conjugates which provides a good overview of their uses is available for all molecular subtypes. Some therapeutic settings, including patients with brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease, older patients, locally advanced breast cancer and visceral crises, continue to be particularly important and were discussed in structured sessions. The scientific context of some of the topics discussed at ABC7 is presented and assessed here., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt B. A. received honoria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, GSK, Stemline, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. M. B.-P. received honoraria for lectures and advisory role from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Samsung, MSD, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Pintuition, Pierre Fabre, and study support from Mammotome, Endomag and Merit Medical. E. B. received honoraria from Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, BBraun and onkowissen.de for clinical research management and/or medical education activities. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen,Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. 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. D. H. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal and Pfizer. M. H. has no conflict of interest. N. H. received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. 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. K. has no conflict of interest. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Seagen, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Zuellgen Pharma and MSD, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro and owns stock of Theraclion SA. D. L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and Eisai. He received travel expenses from Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo. 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. S. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, Pfizer, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. 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. F. S. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen and Roche and received honoraria for lectures from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer. 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. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Seagen and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor and AstraZeneca and has received trial funding by Exact Sciences and Endomag Manuscript support was done by Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. all honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen; Gilead. M. W. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. I. W. has participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Pfizer and received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. A. W. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai and received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. B. has received honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Gruenenthal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Stemline, travel support from Astra Zeneca, Daiichi, MSD, Lilly, Novartis, and grants from Daiichi and MSD. R. W. has received honoraria, travel support from Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, Viatris. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work./ B. A. erhielt Honorare und und Reisekosten von AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, GSK, Stemline, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo und Pfizer. M. B.-P. erhielt Vortragshonorare und Beraterhonorare von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Samsung, MSD, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Pintuition, Pierre Fabre, und Forschungsförderung von Mammotome, Endomag und Merit Medical. E. B. erhielt Honorare von Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B. Braun und onkowissen.de für klinisches Forschungsmanagement und/oder medizinische Fortbildungsaktivitäten. N. D. erhielt Honorare von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma und Teva. Seine Institution betreibt Forschung mit Unterstützung von Novartis und BioNtech. T. N. F. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche und erhielt Vortragshonorare von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. M. H. hat keine Interessenkonflikte zu melden. N. H. erhielt Vortragshonorare und/oder Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten von AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. erhielt Forschungsstipendien und/oder Honorare von Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene und Johnson & Johnson. A. K. hat keine Interessenkonflikte zu melden. H.-C. K. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Seagen, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Zuellgen Pharma und MSD; Reisekostenzuschüsse von Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro; und besitzt Aktien von Theraclion SA. D. L. erhielt Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo und Roche und erhielt Vortragshonorare von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, Gilead, AstraZeneca und Eisai; Reisekostenzuschüsse von Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Daiichi-Sankyo. V. M. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead; Beraterhonorare von Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead; institutionelle Forschungsförderung von Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech; Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. E. S. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, Pfizer, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. A. S. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Celgene, Roche, Honorare von 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 und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. F. S. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen and Roche und erhielt Vortragshonorare von Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis und Pfizer. H. T. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Celgene and Pfizer. C. T. erhielt Honorare für die Teilnahme an Beiräten und für Vorträge von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. M. T. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Seagen und Roche; erhielt Vortragshonorare von Amgen, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor und AstraZeneca; erhielt Studienfinanzierung von Exact Sciences and Endomag; Unterstützung für das Manuskript kam von Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. Alle Honorare wurden an die Institution/den Arbeitergeber abgeführt: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. M. W. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche. I. W. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Pfizer und erhielt Sprecherhonorare von AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. A. W. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai und erhielt Vortragshonorare von Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. B. erhielt Honorare von Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Gruenenthal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Stemline; Reisekostenzuschüsse von Astra Zeneca, Daiichi, MSD, Lilly, Novartis und Forschungszuschüsse von Daiichi und MSD. R. W. erhielt Honorare und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, Viatris. Die anderen Autoren und Autorinnen haben keine Interessenkonflikte zu melden., (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/ ).)

In recent years, new targeted therapies have been developed to treat patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. Some of these therapies have not just become the new therapy standard but also led to significantly longer overall survival rates. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become the therapeutic standard for first-line therapy. Around 70 - 80% of patients are treated with a CDK4/6i. In recent years, a number of biomarkers associated with progression, clonal selection or evolution have been reported for CDK4/6i and their endocrine combination partners. Understanding the mechanisms behind treatment efficacy and resistance is important. A better understanding could contribute to planning the most effective therapeutic sequences and utilizing basic molecular information to overcome endocrine resistance. One study with large numbers of patients which aims to elucidate these mechanisms is the Comprehensive Analysis of sPatial, TempORal and molecular patterns of ribociclib efficacy and resistance in advanced Breast Cancer patients (CAPTOR BC) trial. This overview summarizes the latest clinical research on resistance to endocrine therapies, focusing on CDK4/6 inhibitors and discussing current study concepts., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt B. A. received honoria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. C. B. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. received honoraria from Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun and onkowissen.de for clinical research management and/or medical education activities. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and BioNtech. T. E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. 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. D. H. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal and Pfizer. C. C. H. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. received speaker honoraria from Novartis. H. N. received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. 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. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro and owns stock of Theraclion SA and Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex and Hexal and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and Eisai. 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. B. R. reports research grants from Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata. Honoraria from AZ, Roche. C. R. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. 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. K. S. received travel support from Gilead and Lilly. F.-A. T. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor and AstraZeneca and has received trial funding from Exact Sciences and Endomag Manuscript support was provided by Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. all honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen and Eli Lilly. The other authors (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work./ B. A. erhielt Honorare und Reisekosten von AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo und Pfizer. C. B. ist Angestellte der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. erhielt Honorare von Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun und onkowissen.de für klinisches Forschungsmanagement und/oder Aktivitäten der medizinischen Fortbildung. S. Y. B. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. erhielt Honorare von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma und Teva. Seine Institution betreibt Forschung mit finanzieller Unterstützung von Novartis und BioNtech. T. E. erhielt Honorare von AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. T. N. F. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche und hat Vortragshonorare erhalten von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. C. C. H. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai und Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Novartis. H. N. erhielt Vortragshonorare und/oder Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten vn Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. erhielt Forschungsstipendien und/oder Honorare von Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene und Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, Reisekostenzuschüsse von Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro und besitzt Aktien von Theraclion SA und Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. erhielt Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex und Hexal und erhielt Vortragshonorare von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca und Eisai. V. M. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Beraterhonorare von Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead, institutionelle Forschungsförderung von Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. B. R. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata, Honorare von AZ, Roche. C. R. ist Angestellter der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. A. S. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Celgene, Roche, Honorare von 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 und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. K. S. erhielt Reisekostenzuschüsse von Gilead und Lilly. F.-A. T. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Celgene und Pfizer. M. T. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen und Roche, erhielt Vortragshonorare von Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor und AstraZeneca und erhielt Studienfinanzierung von Exact Sciences und Endomag; Unterstützung für das Manuskript kam von Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. Alle Honorare wurden an die Institution/den Arbeitergeber abgeführt: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen und Eli Lilly. Die anderen Autoren und Autorinnen (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) haben keine Interessenkonflikte zu melden., (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 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/ ).)

Background: There is little evidence that dietary supplements are beneficial for patients with breast cancer; therefore, they are usually not recommended by treatment guidelines. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the prevalence of dietary supplement (DS) intake among women before and after a breast cancer diagnosis., Methods: Participants in the SUCCESS C lifestyle intervention study, a randomized controlled trial in women with newly diagnosed intermediate- to high-risk breast cancer, completed two questionnaires on dietary supplement intake 24 months (QS1) and 48 months (QS2) after beginning the lifestyle intervention. The study was registered on 12.17.2008 under the EU Clinical Trials Register https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ , trial registration number: 2008-005453-38. The questionnaires collected data on DS intake during the 5-year period prediagnosis (QS1) and in the period postdiagnosis (QS2). Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to examine differences in DS intake between the two intervention groups. The groups were then pooled to examine differences in DS use between the prediagnostic and postdiagnostic period., Results: A total of 320 questionnaires from 58.5% of intervention group completers and 416 questionnaires from 46.6% of low-level intervention group completers were included in the analysis. Overall, 20.2% of all respondents reported taking DS prior to their diagnosis. After a cancer diagnosis, the percentage of women taking DS significantly increased to 56.4% (p for time effect < 0.0001). No differences in DS intake between the intervention groups were observed. Single or combined preparations of vitamins and minerals/trace elements were the most frequently reported supplements. Notably, a 9-fold increase in vitamin D intake was reported postdiagnosis, where the proportion of women increased from 3.8 to 34.5%., Conclusion: A 3-fold increase in the reported intake of dietary supplements was seen in women after a breast cancer diagnosis. These observations underscore the need to incorporate patient education surrounding the use of dietary supplements in a treatment care plan, particularly addressing the negligible benefits as well as the potential risks and treatment interactions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Fifteen to thirty percent of all patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) develop brain metastases (BCBMs). Recently, the antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) sacituzumab govitecan (SG) and trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) have shown to be highly effective in the treatment of MBC. However, there are only limited data whether these macromolecules are also effective in patients with BCBMs. We therefore aimed to examine the efficacy of SG and T-DXd in patients with stable and active BCBMs in a multicenter real-world analysis., Patients and Methods: Female patients with stable or active BCBMs who were treated with either SG or T-DXd at three breast centers in Germany before 30 June 2023 were included. As per local clinical praxis, chemotherapy efficacy was evaluated by whole-body computed tomography and cranial magnetic resonance imaging at baseline and at least every 3 months according to local standards. Growth dynamics of BCBMs were assessed by board-certified neuroradiologists., Results: Of 26 patients, with a median of 2.5 prior therapy lines in the metastatic setting (range 2-15), 12 (43%) and 16 (57%) patients received SG and T-DXd, respectively. Out of the 12 patients who received SG, 2 (17%) were subsequently treated with T-DXd. Five out of 12 (42%) and 5 out of 16 (31%) patients treated with SG and T-DXd, respectively, had active BCBMs at treatment initiation. The intracranial disease control rate was 42% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 71%] for patients treated with SG and 88% (95% CI 72% to 100%) for patients treated with T-DXd. After a median follow-up of 12.7 months, median intracranial progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI 1.6-10.5 months) for SG and 11.2 months (95% CI 7.5-23.7 months) for T-DXd., Conclusions: SG and T-DXd showed promising clinical activity in both stable and active BCBMs. Further prospective clinical studies designed to investigate the efficacy of modern ADCs on active and stable BCBMs are urgently needed., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Endometriosis affects approximately 10% of women of reproductive age and leads to significant morbidity and financial burden. Consequently, countries such as France and Germany are formulating strategies to combat endometriosis. In this study, we propose the implementation of our three-dimensional model (3D-E) to raise awareness about endometriosis and enhance timely diagnosis, treatment, and long-term care for affected patients., Methods: Based on the adapted Six Sigma Principle and the modified recommendation of Sales et al. for implementing evidence-based findings into a clinical routine, we first conducted a comprehensive investigation to identify risk factors leading to diagnostic delay of endometriosis. After identifying improvable factors, the applicable options were selected due to defined criteria such as integrability in the clinical routine, cost-effectiveness, and evidence-based-principle. Finally, solutions feasible for health care providers were integrated and the 3D-E model was established., Results: Some of the main risk factors contributing to diagnostic delays are symptoms acceptance and misinterpreted symptoms, especially if presenting to nongynecologists in cases of extragenital endometriosis with atypical presentation. Therefore, we tried to sensitize colleagues (first dimension) with a review paper in Germany's largest medical journal and started an elective for medical students (second dimension) at our university. In order to involve additional health care professionals in endometriosis care (third dimension), we are preparing the concept of the EndoNurse., Conclusion: The 3D-E model is a relatively low-cost, comprehensive, and worldwide adaptable approach for facilitating knowledge transfer, sensitizing health care providers, and improving endometriosis diagnostics and therapy for patients with endometriosis who are in the center of the model., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Background: The GENEVIEVE study, comparing neoadjuvant cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and luminal B/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC), previously reported significant differences in pathological complete response (pCR) rates. Effects on long-term outcome are unknown., Patients and Methods: GENEVIEVE randomized patients with cT2-3, any cN or cT1, cN+/pN SLN +, centrally confirmed TNBC or luminal B/HER2-negative BC (latter defined as estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive and >14% Ki-67-stained cells) to receive either cabazitaxel 25 mg/m 2 q3w for four cycles or paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 weekly for 12 weeks. Anthracycline-containing chemotherapy was allowed in case of histologically proven invasive residuals as neoadjuvant treatment or after surgery as adjuvant treatment. Here we report the secondary endpoints invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), and overall survival (OS)., Results: Of the 333 patients randomized, 74.7% and 83.2% completed treatment in the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms, respectively. After a median follow-up of 89.3 months (interquartile range 68.8-97.3 months), 80 iDFS events (43 after cabazitaxel and 37 after paclitaxel) and 47 deaths (23 after cabazitaxel and 24 after paclitaxel) were reported. IDFS rates were not significantly different between the cabazitaxel and paclitaxel arms after a 3-year (83.6% versus 85.0%) and 5-year follow-up (76.2% versus 78.3%) [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.82-1.96, P = 0.294], respectively. DDFS rates at 3 years (88.6% versus 87.8%) and 5 years (82.1% versus 82.8%) for cabazitaxel and paclitaxel were comparable (HR = 1.15, P = 0.573). Similarly, OS rates at 3 years (91.6% versus 91.8%) and 5 years (89.2% versus 86.8%) showed no significant differences (HR = 1.05, P = 0.872). Subgroup analysis for TNBC and luminal B/HER2-negative BCs indicated no significant variations in 3- or 5-year iDFS, DDFS, or OS., Conclusions: The significant differences in pCR rates observed in both treatment arms did not significantly impact long-term outcomes for patients treated with cabazitaxel versus paclitaxel in the GENEVIEVE trial., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Before the era of immunotherapies and antibody-drug conjugates, there were limited chemotherapeutic options for patients with recurrent and metastatic cervical cancer. Combination therapies with cisplatin have shown some superiority over monotherapy. This study examined platinum-free treatment regimens, comparing a combination of topotecan and paclitaxel (TP) with topotecan and cisplatin (TC) in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer, with or without prior platinum-based treatment., Methods: The AGO-Zervix-1 Study (NCT01405235) is a prospective, randomized phase III study in which patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to treatment within the control arm with topotecan (0.75 mg/m 2 ) on days 1-3 and cisplatin (50 mg/m 2 ) on day 1 every 3 weeks and in the study arm topotecan (1.75 mg/m 2 ) and paclitaxel (70 mg/m 2 ) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or treatment. The primary study aim was overall survival; progression-free survival, toxicity, and quality of life were secondary aims. The interim and final analysis is here reported after recruitment of 173 of 312 planned patients., Results: Median overall survival in the TP arm was 9.6 months, compared with 12.0 months in the TC arm (log-rank test, P = 0.33). Median progression-free survival rates were 4.4 months with TP and 4.2 months with TC (log-rank test, P = 0.47). Leukopenia and nausea/vomiting were more frequent in the cisplatin-containing arm. Otherwise, toxicity profiles were comparable. There were no differences in FACT-G-assessed quality of life., Conclusion: Platinum-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care chemotherapy regimen for patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. I.V. reports Consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Molecular Partners, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Regeneron, Seagen, Verastem Oncology, Zai Lab, Zentalis. P.H. declares honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Roche, Sotio, Stryker, Zai Lab, MSD, Clovis, Eisai, Mersana, Exscientia, Advisory Board participations from Astra Zeneca, Roche, GSK, Clovis, Immunogen, MSD, Miltenyi, Novartis, Eisai and Research Funding (Inst) from Astra Zeneca, Roche, GSK, Genmab, DFG, European Union, DKH, Immunogen, Seagen, Clovis, Novartis. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background : There are many reports about variations in the menstrual cycle after infection with SARS-CoV-2 or vaccination against it. However, data on SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination-related changes in menstruation-associated endometriosis-typical symptoms such as dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, dyschezia, dysuria, and bloating are rare or missing. Methods : This retrospective study was performed as an online survey among employees and students at the University Hospital Ulm, Germany. Changes regarding the presence of mentioned symptoms and after immunization (vaccination and/or infection) were evaluated with the McNemar Test. Additionally, the risk factors associated with these changes and associations between a subjectively perceived general change in menstruation and changes in the symptoms were evaluated. Results : A total of 1589 respondents were included in the final analysis. Less than 4% of respondents reported the occurrence of new symptoms that they had not experienced before immunization. Overall, there was a significant reduction in the presence of dysmenorrhea, back pain, dyschezia, bloating, and dyspareunia after immunization against coronavirus ( p < 0.001). Only 2.3% of all participants reported to have been diagnosed with endometriosis. Factors associated with changes in endometriosis-typical symptoms following immunization were body mass index, age, endometriosis, and thyroid disease. Conclusions : Our results provide unique data about a reduction in the incidence of endometriosis-associated symptoms as dysmenorrhea, dyschezia, and dyspareunia after immunization against COVID-19.

Purpose: The MONALEESA-2, -3, -7 trials demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) benefits with ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET alone in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Understanding the association of intrinsic subtypes with survival outcomes could potentially guide treatment decisions. Here, we evaluated the association of intrinsic subtypes with OS in MONALEESA-2, -3, -7., Experimental Design: Tumor samples from MONALEESA-2, -3, -7 underwent PAM50-based subtyping. The relationship between subtypes and OS was assessed using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Multivariable models were adjusted for clinical prognostic factors., Results: Overall, 990 tumors (among 2,066 patients) from ribociclib (n = 580) and placebo (n = 410) arms were profiled. Subtype distribution was luminal A, 54.5%; luminal B, 28.0%; HER2-enriched (HER2E) 14.6%; and basal-like, 2.8%; and was consistent across treatment arms. The luminal A subtype had the best OS outcomes in both arms, while basal-like had the worst. Patients with HER2E (HR, 0.60; P = 0.018), luminal B (HR, 0.69; P = 0.023), and luminal A (HR, 0.75; P = 0.021) subtypes derived OS benefit with ribociclib. Patients with basal-like subtype did not derive benefit from ribociclib (HR, 1.92; P = 0.137); however, patient numbers were small (n = 28)., Conclusions: The prognostic value of intrinsic subtypes for OS was confirmed in this pooled analysis of the MONALEESA trials (largest dataset in HR+/HER2- ABC). While basal-like subtype did not benefit, a consistent OS benefit was observed with ribociclib added to ET across luminal and HER2E subtypes., (©2023 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

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/).)

Background: In MONALEESA-2, addition of ribociclib to letrozole resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in postmenopausal women with HR+HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). RIBociclib for the treatment of advanCed breast CAncer (RIBECCA) study investigated ribociclib plus letrozole in a patient population reflecting routine clinical practice., Patients and Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study, patients with HR+HER2- ABC not amenable to curative therapy and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 received ribociclib plus letrozole (cohort A: postmenopausal women and men in first-line; cohort B: pre-/perimenopausal women in first-line [B1], patients pretreated for advanced disease [B2]). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) by week 24; secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. Association of patient and tumor characteristics with PFS was analyzed by multivariable Cox regression analysis., Results: Overall, 487 patients were evaluable for efficacy, 502 for safety. By week 24, CBR was 60.8 % (95 % CI, 56.3-65.1), ORR was 19.3 % (95 % CI, 15.9-23.1). Median PFS was 21.8 months (95 % CI, 13.9-25.3) in first-line postmenopausal patients and 11.0 months (95 % CI, 8.2-16.4) in premenopausal and pretreated patients. Median OS was not reached. Higher baseline ECOG performance status, higher histological grade, and negative progesterone receptor status showed an unfavorable effect on PFS. Most common adverse events were neutropenia (50.0 %), nausea (42.0 %), and fatigue (39.2 %)., Conclusion: In this broad population of patients with HR+HER2- ABC, efficacy and safety results of ribociclib plus letrozole were similar to those observed in pivotal trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Peter A. Fasching reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from Biontech, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, 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 Sanofi Aventis, personal fees from Gilead, during the conduct of the study. Thomas Decker reports being on advisory board with Novartis, Lilly. Andreas Hartkopf reports consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Seattle Genetics, ExactSiences; honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche; travel expenses from Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca; grants or contracts from ExactSiences; writing Support from Novartis. Arnd Nusch has no conflict of interest to disclose. Bernhard J. Heinrich has received documentation fees from Novartis. Christian M. Kurbacher received grants or contracts from Astra Zeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Immunomedics, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, Seattle Genetics; consulting fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Riemser, Roche, GSK, Servier; honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, GSK; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Immunomedics, Pfizer, TEVA Oncology; has been on advisory board with Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Onkotrakt, PharmaMar, Riemser, Roche, GSK; has been on board of directors (unpaid) in Berufsverband niedergelassener gynäkologischer Onkologen in Deutschland e. V.(BNGO). Roswitha Fuchs has no conflict of interest to disclose. Hans Tesch has received consulting fees from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharma, Mundipharma, ClinSol, Novartis, Lilly, Grünenthal, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Mylan, Amgen; honoraria from Vifor, Novartis, AstraZeneca, ClinSol, MundiPharma, Lilly, Amgen; travel expenses from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Mundipharma, ClinSol, Novartis, Lilly, Grünenthal, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Mylan, Amgen; has been on advisory board with Novartis, BMS, Molecular Health GmbH, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche, Grünenthal, Mylan; has been in leadership or fiduciary role in Arbeitskreis KlinischeStudien e.V., ASCO, BNHO, DGHO, DKG, ESMO, Deutsche Ges. für Senologie. Petra Krabisch has no conflict of interest to disclose. Jens Huober reports research funding from Celgene, Novartis, Hexal; honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, Eisai, Abbvie; consulting/advisory relationship with Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Hexal, AstraZeneca, MSD, Celgene, Abbvie; travel expenses from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Celgene, Daiichi. Sherko Kuemmel reports receiving consulting fees from Lilly, pfm medical, Somatex, MSD; honoraria from Roche, Genomic Health, Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer; travel expenses from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Sonoscape; advisory board with Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer; leadership of fiduciary role in WSG (Co Director), AGO, NOGGOe.V, AGimed. Sara Y. Brucker reports receiving honoraria from Storz, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Storz, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca; advisory board with Storz, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca. Wolfgang Janni received grants or contracts from Novartis; consulting fees from Novartis; honoraria from Novartis; payment for expert testimony from Novartis; travel expenses from Novartis. Andreas Schneeweiss received writing support from Roche; grants or contracts from Celgene, Roche, AbbVie; consulting fees from Celgene, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly; payment for expert testimony from Roche, AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer. Martin Schuler reports receiving consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, Takeda; honoraria from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Janssen, MSD, Novartis; research funding to institution from AstraZeneca, BMS. Tanja Fehm received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD, TEVA; travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo, Roche; was on advisory board with Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Pfizer., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Axillary Ultrasound (AUS) is standard for pre-therapeutic axillary staging in early breast cancer patients. 35-75 % of the breast cancer (BC) patients with positive axillary lymph nodes receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) convert to pathological node negative. For those patients, axillary surgery after NACT could be de-escalated, if an accurate prediction of the pathologic nodal status following NACT was possible. This study aims to answer the question, whether AUS can be used as a reliable diagnostic tool for restaging of axillary nodal status after NACT., Patients and Methods: We collected data of 96 patients with nodal positive primary breast cancer who received NACT between 2009 and 2015 at the Breast Cancer Center of the University Hospital Ulm. Patients were classified as node negative or positive by AUS after NACT (ycN + or ycN0) and the results were compared to the pathological result obtained after axillary lymph node dissection (ypN + vs ypN0) in all patients., Results: 58.3 % of the patients had pathological complete remission of axillary lymph nodes after NACT (ypN0). The sensitivity and specificity of AUS were 57.5 % and 78.6 %, respectively. The FNR was 42.5 %. The Positive and Negative Predictive Values (PPV and NPV) were 65.7 % and 72.1 %, respectively. The accuracy of AUS was 69.8 % and not associated with any of the investigated clinico-pathological parameters., Conclusion: AUS alone is not accurate enough to replace surgical restaging of the axilla after NACT in initially node positive breast cancer patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Thomas W. P. Friedl has received honoraria from Novartis and Lilly, unrelated to this work. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.)

Background: Invasive lobular breast carcinomas (ILC) have different histological features compared to non-special type carcinomas (NST), but the effect of histological subtypes on survival is controversial. In this study, we compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes between ILC and NST based on a large pooled data set from three adjuvant breast cancer trials (SUCCESS A, B, and C) and investigated a potential differential effect of recurrence risk related to nodal stage on survival., Methods: From 2005 to 2017, the large randomized controlled SUCCESS A, B, and C trials enrolled 8190 patients with primary, intermediate-to-high-risk breast carcinoma. All patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, and endocrine and/or HER2-targeted treatment was given where appropriate. Survival outcomes in terms of disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and distant disease-free survival (DDFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed using log-rank tests as well as univariable and adjusted multivariable Cox regression models., Results: In the SUCCESS trials, 6284 patients had NST and 952 had ILC. The median follow-up time was 64 months. ILC patients were older, more likely to receive mastectomy, and more likely to have larger tumor sizes, lymph node infiltration, hormone receptor-positive, HER2neu-negative, and luminal A-like tumors than NST patients. In the overall cohort, no significant differences between ILC and NST were detectable regarding the four survival endpoints, with hazard ratios obtained in adjusted multivariable cox regressions of 0.96 (95% CI 0.77-1.21, p = 0.743) for DFS, 1.13 (95% CI 0.85-1.50, p = 0.414) for OS, 1.21 (95% CI 0.89-1.66, p = 0.229) for BCSS, and 0.95 (95% CI 0.73-1.24, p = 0.689) for DDFS. However, a differential effect of nodal stage on survival was observed, with better survival for ILC patients with pN0/pN1 tumors and worse survival for ILC patients with pN2/pN3 tumors compared to NST patients., Conclusions: Our results revealed that ILC was associated with worse survival compared to NST for patients at high risk of recurrence due to advanced lymph node infiltration. These findings should be taken into account for treatment decisions and monitoring., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: W. Janni: no conflict of interest to declare. M. Banys-Paluchowski: Honoraria for lectures and participation in advisory boards: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, onkowissen, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Amgen, Samsung, Canon, MSD, GSK, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Medical, Syantra, Resitu, Pierre Fabre, Exact Sciences. Study support from: Endomag, Mammotome, Merit Medical, Sirius Medical, Gilead, Hologic, Exact Sciences. Travel reimbursement: Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche. F.C. Bidard: consulting or advisory board: Pfizer; AstraZeneca; Lilly; Novartis; Menarini; Sanofi; GSK; Rain Oncology; Caris Life Sciences; GE Healthcare; Exact Sciences; Gilead. Speaker’s bureau: Pfizer; Novartis; AstraZeneca; Roche; Lilly; Rain Oncology; Daiichi Sankyo; Menarini-Stemline. Research funding: Novartis; Pfizer; Menarini Silicon Biosystems; ProLynx; Merck KGaA; GE Healthcare. C. Thomssen: no conflict of interest to declare.

Background: As the available information about breast cancer is growing every day, the decision-making process for the therapy is getting more complex. ChatGPT as a transformer-based language model possesses the ability to write scientific articles and pass medical exams. But is it able to support the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) in the planning of the therapy of patients with breast cancer?, Material and Methods: We performed a pilot study on 10 consecutive cases of breast cancer patients discussed in MDT at our department in January 2023. Included were patients with a primary diagnosis of early breast cancer. The recommendation of MDT was compared with the recommendation of the ChatGPT for particular patients and the clinical score of the agreement was calculated., Results: Results showed that ChatGPT provided mostly general answers regarding chemotherapy, breast surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and antibody therapy. It was able to identify risk factors for hereditary breast cancer and point out the elderly patient indicated for chemotherapy to evaluate the cost/benefit effect. ChatGPT wrongly identified the patient with Her2 1 + and 2 + (FISH negative) as in need of therapy with an antibody and called endocrine therapy "hormonal treatment"., Conclusions: Support of artificial intelligence by finding individualized and personalized therapy for our patients in the time of rapidly expanding amount of information is looking for the ways in the clinical routine. ChatGPT has the potential to find its spot in clinical medicine, but the current version is not able to provide specific recommendations for the therapy of patients with primary breast cancer., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The NATALEE study showed a significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) for patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer (eBC) at intermediate and high risk of recurrence who were treated with the CDK4/6 inhibitor Ribociclib in combination with endocrine therapy (ET). This retrospective study aims to apply the NATALEE inclusion criteria to a representative real-world cohort to estimate the proportion of HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients eligible for adjuvant Ribociclib therapy. Patients who underwent full surgical treatment for eBC between January 2018 and December 2020 at two large German university breast cancer centers (University of Ulm, University of Tuebingen) were included. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the patient population eligible for Ribociclib treatment based on the NATALEE study's inclusion criteria. Out of 2384 enrolled patients, 1738 had HR+/HER2- eBC, of whom 43% (747/1738) met the NATALEE inclusion criteria. Of note, these patients were older, received less chemotherapy and presented with less advanced tumor stages compared to the NATALEE study cohort. Additionally, compared to the NATALEE study cohort, fewer patients had lymph node involvement (72.4% vs. 88.7%). Our analysis suggests that approximately 43% of all HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients will qualify for Ribociclib treatment. Given the numerous treatment options for patients with HR+/HER2- eBC, as well as the differences between the NATALEE cohort and patients in the real-world clinical setting, future analyses will be needed to determine which patients would benefit most from adjuvant CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment.

Objective: Abnormalities of the menstrual cycle were reported after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccination against it, but the available data are very heterogeneous, do not reflect intermenstrual variations or regional differences, and their risk factors are missing., Methods: We performed a survey-based study among 6383 employees and students of Ulm University Hospital in Germany between March 1 and 31, 2021. Attributes of menstrual cycles such as cycle length (CL), menses duration (MD), and bleeding volume (BV) were reported as categorical variables before and after immunization against SARS-CoV-2 (first, second, third vaccination or infection). Additionally, the potential risk factors for cycle changes were evaluated and all participants reported the subjective perception of changes, their duration, and time of occurrence., Results: The final analysis included 1726 participants. CL and BV significantly changed after vaccination, but not MD. The subjective perception showed only slight levels of agreement with the objective changes, with the highest Cohen's kappa for CL. The risk factors for the variations in CL were previous cycle irregularities, and risk factors for the changes in BV were age and body mass index. The combination of vaccines (homogenous or heterogeneous) and different types of immunization (infection and vaccination) had no significant effect on cycle irregularities., Conclusion: In summary, immunization against SARS-CoV-2 causes changes in the characteristics of the menstrual cycle, which are mostly temporary. The individual risk factors, but not the type of immunization, can affect the mentioned changes., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

The St. Gallen (SG) International Breast Cancer Conference is held every two years, previously in St. Gallen and now in Vienna. This year (2023) marks the eighteenth edition of this conference, which focuses on the treatment of patients with early-stage breast carcinoma. A panel discussion will be held at the end of this four-day event, during which a panel of experts will give their opinions on current controversial issues relating to the treatment of early-stage breast cancer patients. To this end, questions are generally formulated in such a way that clinically realistic cases are presented - often including poignant hypothetical modifications. This review reports on the outcome of these discussions and summarises the data associated with individual questions raised., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt B. A. received honoria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo and Pfizer. M. B.-P. received honoraria for lectures and advisory role from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Samsung, MSD, GSK, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Pintuition, Pierre Fabre, and study support from Mammotome, Endomag and Merit Medical. E. B. received honoraria from Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, BBraun and onkowissen.de for clinical research management and/or medical education activities. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen,Gilead, MCI Healthcare. 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 Merck Sharp & Dohme, 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. 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. D. H. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo, Hexal and Pfizer. N. H. received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. 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. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Seagen, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi-Sankyo and MSD, travel support from Carl, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Tesaro and owns stock of Theraclion SA and Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi-Sankyo, PharmaMar and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi-Sankyo, Grünenthal, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and Eisai. He is editorial board member of medactuell from medac. 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. S. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, Pfizer, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. 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. F. S. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen and Roche and received honoraria for lectures from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer. 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. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor and AstraZeneca and has received trial funding by Exact Sciences and Endomag. Manuscript support was done by Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. : All honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. M. W. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. I. W. has participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Daichii-Sankyo, Lilly, Pfizer and received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daichii-Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. A. W. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai and received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. W. has received honoraria, travel support from Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, Viatris. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work. B. A. erhielt Vergütungen und Reisezuschüsse von AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo und Pfizer. M. B.-P. erhielt Vergütungen für Vorträge und eine beratende Rolle von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm, Eli Lilly, Onkowissen, Seagen, AstraZeneca, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Samsung, MSD, GSK, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, Sirius Pintuition, Pierre Fabre und eine Studienförderung von Mammotome, Endomag und Merit Medical. E. B. erhielt Vergütungen von Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, BBraun und onkowissen.de für klinisches Forschungsmanagement und/oder medizinische Bildungsaktivitäten. N. D. erhielt Vergütungen von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. meldet private Vergütungen von Novartis, Zuschüsse von Biontech, private Vergütungen von Pfizer, private Vergütungen von Daiichi-Sankyo, private Vergütungen von AstraZeneca, private Vergütungen von Eisai, private Vergütungen von Merck Sharp & Dohme, Zuschüsse von Cepheid, private Vergütungen von Lilly, private Vergütungen von Pierre Fabre, private Vergütungen von SeaGen, private Vergütungen von Roche, private Vergütungen von Hexal, private Vergütungen von Agendia, private Vergütungen von Gilead. T. N. F. war Mitglied von Beratungsgremien für Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche und erhielt Vergütungen für Vorträge von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt Vergütungen als Redner und Berater von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. N. H. erhielt Vergütungen für Vorträge und/oder Beratungen von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. erhielt Forschungszuschüsse und/oder Vergütungen von Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene und Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. erhielt Vergütungen von Pfizer, Seagen, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi-Sankyo und MSD, Reisebeihilfen von Carl, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Tesaro und besitzt Aktien von Theraclion SA und Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. erhielt Vergütungen von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. war Mitglied von Beratungsgremien für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi-Sankyo, PharmaMar und Roche und erhielt Vergütungen für Vorträge von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi-Sankyo, Grünenthal, Gilead, AstraZeneca und Eisai. Er ist Mitglied des Redaktionsausschusses von medactuell von medac. V. M. erhielt Vergütungen als Redner von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Vergütungen als Berater von Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead. Institutionelle Forschungsförderung von Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Reisezuschüsse: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo. E. S. erhielt Vergütungen von Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, Pfizer, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. A. S. erhielt Forschungszuschüsse von Celgene, Roche, Vergütungen von 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 und Reisebeihilfe von Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. F. S. war Mitglied von Beratungsgremien für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen and Roche und erhielt Vergütungen für Vorträge von Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis und Pfizer. H. T. erhielt Vergütungen von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisebeihilfe von Roche, Celgene und Pfizer. C. T. erhielt Vergütungen für Beratungsgremien und Vorträge von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. M. T. war Mitglied von Beratungsgremien für AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen und Roche und erhielt Vergütungen für Vorträge von Amgen, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor und AstraZeneca und erhielt Studienfinanzierungen von Exact Sciences und Endomag. Manuskript-Beihilfe wurde erhalten von Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. : Alle Vergütungen gingen an die Einrichtung/den Arbeitgeber: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. M. W. war Mitglied von Beratungsgremien für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche. I. W. war Mitglied von Beratungsgremien für Novartis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Pfizer und erhielt Vergütungen als Redner von AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. A. W. war Mitglied von Beratungsgremien für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai und erhielt Vergütungen für Vorträge von Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. W. erhielt Vergütungen, Reisebeihilfe von Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, Viatris. Die anderen Autoren melden für diese besondere Arbeit keinen Interessenkonflikt an., (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/ ).)