Search

Background/aims: Macromastia can cause physical and psychological problems. Conservative treatments such as physiotherapy and painkillers lead to substantial long-term costs, without any proven medical benefit. In contrast, surgical treatment with reduction mammoplasty leads to improvements in nearly all respects. This study analyzed the costs of reduction mammoplasty and calculated an incremental cost-utility ratio for the treatment., Patients and Methods: The data on 76 patients who underwent reduction mammoplasty between 2008 and 2016 were collected using a two-part questionnaire (preoperative and postoperative) as well as the patients' files. Topics examined besides demographic data included physician visits, medical imaging, integrative medical procedures, remedial procedures, rehabilitation and convalescent measures, drug intake, medical aids, exercise activity, and sick leave days before and after surgery. The data were used to calculate costs per year after surgical treatment for symptomatic macromastia. Costs of surgery, including the process of obtaining insurance reimbursement and postoperative complications, were taken into account to calculate the one-time costs of reduction mammoplasty., Results: The patients' quality of life and satisfaction with the breasts improve after surgery. The one-time costs of reduction mammoplasty per patient amount to EUR 5,885, and the annual costs after surgery are EUR 200. The incremental cost-utility ratio for surgical treatments shows a saving of EUR 380 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Conclusions: These results show that reduction mammoplasty is a treatment that not only improves a patient's quality of life but also saves money in the longer term in comparison with expensive and ineffective conservative treatment for macromastia., Competing Interests: M.P.L., A.B.-B., C.P., A.A., R.E.H., M.W.B., and S.M.J.: no conflicts of interest. C.C.H.: received honoraria from Roche and Novartis., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: In breast cancer, a pathological complete response (pCR) has been described as generally resulting in a favorable prognosis. However, there are subgroups, such as patients with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 , in which the effect of pCR on the prognosis is suspected to be weaker. Patients with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer may therefore react differently in relation to pCR and prognosis, and this is investigated in this study., Patients and Methods: Breast cancer patients were identified from a clinical breast cancer registry. The study subjects had been treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2001 to 2018 and their pathological and clinical information as well as medical family history were available. They were considered to have a positive family history if they had at least 1 first-degree relative with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to study the association between family history, pCR (ypT0; ypN0), and disease-free survival (DFS)., Results: Of 1,480 patients, 228 (15.4%) had a positive family history. The pCR rates were 24.9% in all patients, and 24.4% and 27.6% in those without/with a family history, respectively. Family history was not associated with a higher pCR rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.76; p = 0.27) or a different disease-free survival (DFS; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% CI 0.88-1.52; p = 0.30). pCR did not affect the prognosis differently in relation to family history., Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, family history was not associated with pCR and DFS. pCR improved survival, independently of family history., Competing Interests: M.P.L. reports personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Eisai, medac, and Lilly. C.C.H. reports personal fees from Roche. N.N. reports personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Teva. A. Hartmann reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novartis, AstraZeneca, NanoString, BioNTech, and Janssen-Cilag. P.A.F. reports research grants from Novartis and BioNTech and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, AstraZeneca, Puma, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Myelo Therapeutics. P.G. reports personal fees from Novartis, Roche, and PharmaMar. All the other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The usefulness of clinical breast examination (CBE) in general and in breast cancer screening programs has been a matter of debate. This study investigated whether adding vision-impaired medical tactile examiners (MTEs) improves the predictiveness of CBE for suspicious lesions and analyzed the feasibility and acceptability of this approach., Methods: The prospective study included 104 patients. Physicians and MTEs performed CBEs, and mammography and ultrasound results were used as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and logistic regression models were used to compare the predictive value of CBE by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and physicians and MTEs combined., Results: For CBEs by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and both combined, sensitivity was 71, 82, and 89% and specificity was 55, 45, and 35%, respectively. Using adjusted logistic regression models, the validated areas under the curve were 0.685, 0.692, and 0.710 (median bootstrapped p value (DeLong) = 0.381)., Conclusion: The predictive value for a suspicious breast lesion in CBEs performed by MTEs in patients without prior surgery was similar to that of physician-conducted CBEs. Including MTEs in the CBE procedure in breast units thus appears feasible and could be a way of utilizing their skills.

Two-thirds of all breast cancer patients with metastases have a hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative subtype. Endocrine therapy is the treatment of choice in these patients since in addition to its effectiveness it can also maintain the patients' quality of life over a longer term. However, 44-62% of postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast carcinoma have primary tamoxifen resistance. After 3-5 years, 30-40% of the patients receiving tamoxifen treatment develop secondary resistance. Understanding the way in which resistance develops is therefore essential for developing treatment approaches that can prevent or reverse endocrine resistance. The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway plays a central role here. As a result of the numerous interactions involved, complex issues arise that need to be taken into account in the development and use of therapeutic agents. In addition, this signaling pathway is the one that most frequently undergoes mutations in breast cancer. The prognostic and predictive significance of individual mutations has not yet been fully explained, but it might provide a basis for patient selection in clinical studies. Initial research results on the use of PI3K inhibitors suggest that this may be a highly promising therapeutic approach, with an acceptable side effect profile.