Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: A Case Report about a Male Patient with Pectoral Implants.

Introduction: Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is still a rare extralymphatic lymphoma. As of March 1, 2023, approximately 1,355 cases of BIA-ALCL have been reported worldwide. However, no such case has yet been described with pectoral implants in male patients. Most patients with BIA-ALCL present with nonspecific implant-associated symptoms such as late-onset seroma, swollen breasts, and deformation of implants. Case Presentation: Here, we describe BIA-ALCL in a 76-year-old male patient who presented with a late-onset seroma in order to raise awareness for BIA-ALCL also in men after esthetic chest surgery with silicone pectoral implants. The patient had undergone augmentation of the pectoralis muscle with implants for esthetic reasons 9 years before. First cytological specimens showed no malignancy. A repeated cytological assessment after 6 weeks from recurring seroma showed characteristic CD30+ T-cell clones. Surgery with complete bilateral capsulectomy and implant removal was performed. Due to the early-stage ALCL being limited only to the capsule and no evidence of systemic disease, adjuvant systemic treatment was not considered necessary. Conclusion: Any persisting late-onset seroma also in male patients with pectoral implants should raise suspicion of ALCL as differential diagnosis and should be assessed with cytological examination.

[Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in ovarian cancer]. / Zytoreduktive Chirurgie und hypertherme intraperitoneale Chemoperfusion beim Ovarialkarzinom.

The achievement of macroscopically complete tumor resection in primary debulking surgery is the most important prognostic factor in advanced ovarian cancer. This results in a median survival benefit of >5 years. Systematic lymphadenectomy (LNE) is not indicated in advanced ovarian cancer with inconspicuous lymph nodes as it does not prolong overall survival and therefore should no longer be carried out above stage IIB with inconspicuous lymph nodes in imaging and by palpation. Primary cytoreductive surgery is the standard in advanced ovarian cancer. Neoadjuvant therapy is currently an option only if primary cytoreduction does not appear to be possible. For the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in primary debulking surgery a survival benefit has so far not been proven and therefore HIPEC is not recommended in this setting.

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care. METHODS: In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching). CONCLUSIONS: The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

Demand for integrative medicine among women with breast and gynecological cancer: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Southern and Northern Germany.

PURPOSE: The aim of this multicenter cross-sectional study was to analyze a cohort of breast (BC) and gynecological cancer (GC) patients regarding their interest in, perception of and demand for integrative therapeutic health approaches. METHODS: BC and GC patients were surveyed at their first integrative clinic visit using validated standardized questionnaires. Treatment goals and potential differences between the two groups were evaluated. RESULTS: 340 patients (272 BC, 68 GC) participated in the study. The overall interest in IM was 95.3% and correlated with older age, recent chemotherapy, and higher education. A total of 89.4% were using integrative methods at the time of enrolment, primarily exercise therapy (57.5%), and vitamin supplementation (51.4%). The major short-term goal of the BC patients was a side-effects reduction of conventional therapy (70.4%); the major long-term goal was the delay of a potential tumor progression (69.3%). In the GC group, major short-term and long-term goals were slowing tumor progression (73.1% and 79.1%) and prolonging survival (70.1% and 80.6%). GC patients were significantly more impaired by the side-effects of conventional treatment than BC patients [pain (p = 0.006), obstipation (< 0.005)]. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate a high overall interest in and use of IM in BC and GC patients. This supports the need for specialized IM counseling and the implementation of integrative treatments into conventional oncological treatment regimes in both patient groups. Primary tumor site, cancer diagnosis, treatment phase, and side effects had a relevant impact on the demand for IM in our study population.

Gynecologists' attitudes toward and use of complementary and integrative medicine approaches: results of a national survey in Germany.

PURPOSE: Despite patients' widespread use and acceptance of complementary and integrative medicine (IM), few data are available regarding health-care professionals' current implementation of it in clinical routine. A national survey was conducted to assess gynecologists' attitudes to and implementation of complementary and integrative treatment approaches. METHODS: The Working Group on Integrative Medicine of the German Society of Gynecological Oncology conducted an online survey in collaboration with the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in July 2019. A 29-item survey was sent to all DGGG members by email. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 180 gynecologists were analyzed, of whom 61 were working office-based in private practice and 95 were employed in hospitals. Seventy percent stated that IM concepts are implemented in their routine clinical work. Most physicians reported using IM methods in gynecological oncology. The main indications for IM therapies were fatigue (n = 98), nausea and vomiting (n = 89), climacteric symptoms (n = 87), and sleep disturbances (n = 86). The most commonly recommended methods were exercise therapy (n = 86), mistletoe therapy (n = 78), and phytotherapy (n = 74). Gynecologists offering IM were more often female (P = 0.001), more often had qualifications in anthroposophic medicine (P = 0.005) or naturopathy (P = 0.019), and were more often based in large cities (P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There is strong interest in IM among gynecologists. The availability of evidence-based training in IM is increasing. Integrative therapy approaches are being implemented in clinical routine more and more, and integrative counseling services are present all over Germany. Efforts should focus on extending evidence-based knowledge of IM in both gynecology and gynecological oncology.

An exercise and nutrition intervention for ovarian cancer patients during and after first-line chemotherapy (BENITA study): a randomized controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Data on the treatment-supporting effect of modifiable lifestyle factors such as nutrition and physical activity on survival or quality of life (QoL) are scarce in patients with ovarian cancer. Despite a strong rationale for evaluating the effect of a multimodal intervention and multiple studies targeting other cancer sites, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of a combined nutrition and exercise intervention on survival and QoL in ovarian cancer patients are rare. No study has investigated the impact of an early intervention during first-line chemotherapy. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the study design, feasibility, safety, and acceptance of combined nutrition and exercise in patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer during and after first-line chemotherapy. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Physical exercise and a cancer-specific nutrition intervention after ovarian cancer diagnosis is feasible, accepted, and safe for patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. TRIAL DESIGN: A 1:1 RCT with an intervention group and a control group. The intervention group receives an exercise and nutrition program whereas the control group continues to follow the usual care. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Inclusion: women ≥18 years of age; women diagnosed with ovarian cancer, tubal cancer, or peritoneal cancer and primary or interval debulking surgery. Exclusion: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status of 2 or worse. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: Recruitment rate, completion rate, side effects, and adherence. SAMPLE SIZE: n=30 patients (15 per arm) will be recruited. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: Accrual completion is planned for the end of 2019. Results will be presented in the months following study completion 1 year after recruitment has been finalised. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The pilot phase was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of Hamburg on December 13, 2017 (PV5456). The study was registered on September 9, 2018 at the German Study Registry for Clinical Studies (DRKS00013231).

Temsirolimus in women with platinum-refractory/resistant ovarian cancer or advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma. A phase II study of the AGO-study group (AGO-GYN8).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate activity and toxicity of mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with platinum-refractory/resistant ovarian cancer (OC) or advanced/recurrent endometrial carcinoma (EC). METHODS: Women with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer were eligible, when they had progression during treatment with a platinum based regimen or within 6 months after receiving a platinum based regimen and a previous taxane treatment. Women with advanced/recurrent EC, no longer amenable to curative surgery and/or radiotherapy were eligible when they had no previous or only adjuvant chemotherapy. Preceding endocrine therapy for metastatic/recurrent disease was allowed. Patients received weekly IV infusions of 25mg temsirolimus. Primary endpoint was progression free survival rate after 4 months (OC) or 6 months (EC). A two stage design was applied. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (OC: n=22; EC: n=22) were enrolled and received temsirolimus treatment. Median age was 56 years (OC) or 63 years (EC). After eight weeks of treatment, 10 of 21 evaluable patients in the OC cohort and 8 of 20 evaluable patients in the EC cohort had progressive disease. Thus efficacy did not meet the predefined levels during the first stage of recruitment and the trial was stopped. Some patients in both cohorts had long lasting PFS (>7 months). Toxicity of temsirolimus was mild. CONCLUSIONS: Temsirolimus treatment was well tolerated in our patients, but did not meet the predefined efficacy criteria. In our study as in other trials on rapalogs in OC or EC, a few patients had long lasting disease stabilisations.