Background: The majority of breast cancer patients are severely psychologically affected by breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent therapeutic procedures. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on public life have additionally caused significant psychological distress for much of the population. It is therefore plausible that breast cancer patients might be particularly susceptible to the additional psychological stress caused by the pandemic, increasing suffering. In this study we therefore aimed to assess the level of psychological distress currently experienced by a defined group of breast cancer patients in our breast cancer centre, compared to distress levels preCOVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Female breast cancer patients of all ages receiving either adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative therapies were recruited for the study. All patients were screened for current or previous COVID-19 infection. The participants completed a self-designed COVID-19 pandemic questionnaire, the Stress and Coping Inventory (SCI), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (R) (NCCN (R)) Distress Thermometer (DT), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30, and the BR23. Results: Eighty-two breast cancer patients were included. Therapy status and social demographic factors did not have a significant effect on the distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of the DT pre and during COVID-19 pandemic did not differ significantly. Using the self-designed COVID-19 pandemic questionnaire, we detected three distinct subgroups demonstrating different levels of concerns in relation to SARS-CoV-2. The subgroup with the highest levels of concern reported significantly decreased life quality, related parameters and symptoms. Conclusions: This monocentric study demonstrated that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected psychological health in a subpopulation of breast cancer patients. The application of a self-created "COVID-19 pandemic questionnaire"could potentially be used to help identify breast cancer patients who are susceptible to increased psychological distress due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore may need additional intensive psychological support.

Purpose An increasing incidence of breast cancer can be observed worldwide. Since a delay of therapy can have a negative impact on prognosis, timely cancer care is an important quality indicator. By receiving treatment at a certified breast cancer center, the patient has the best chance of treatment in accordance with guidelines and the best prognosis. The identification of risk factors for a delay of therapy is of central importance and should be the basis for a continuous optimization of treatment at breast cancer centers. Methods This retrospective study included women with breast cancer (primary diagnosis, relapse, or secondary malignancy) at the University Hospital Würzburg in 2019 and 2020. Data were retrieved from patients’ records. Correlations and regression analyses were performed to detect potential risk factors for treatment delay. Results Patients who received the histological confirmation of breast cancer at an external institution experienced a later therapy start than those patients who received the histological confirmation at the University Hospital Würzburg itself. (35.7 vs. 32.2 days). The interval between histological confirmation and the first consultation at the University Hospital Würzburg correlated statistically significant with age, distress and distance to the hospital. Conclusion Patients with an in-house diagnosis of breast cancer are treated more quickly than those whose diagnosis was confirmed in an external institution. We identified factors such as increased age, greater distance to the hospital as well as increased distress to prolong the time until start of oncological treatment. Intensified patient care should be offered to these subgroups.

Background The development of metastases is a negative prognostic parameter for the clinical outcome of breast cancer. Bone constitutes the first site of distant metastases for many affected women. The purpose of this retrospective multicentre study was to evaluate if and how different variables such as primary tumour stage, biological and histological subtype, age at primary diagnosis, tumour size, the number of affected lymph nodes as well as grading influence the development of bone-only metastases. Methods This retrospective German multicentre study is based on the BRENDA collective and included 9625 patients with primary breast cancer recruited from 1992 to 2008. In this analysis, we investigated a subgroup of 226 patients with bone-only metastases. Association between bone-only relapse and clinico-pathological risk factors was assessed in multivariate models using the tree-building algorithms “exhausted CHAID (Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detectors)” and CART(Classification and Regression Tree), as well as radial basis function networks (RBF-net), feedforward multilayer perceptron networks (MLP) and logistic regression. Results Multivariate analysis demonstrated that breast cancer subtypes have the strongest influence on the development of bone-only metastases (χ2 = 28). 29.9 % of patients with luminal A or luminal B (ABC-patients) and 11.4 % with triple negative BC (TNBC) or HER2-overexpressing tumours had bone-only metastases (p < 0.001). Five different mathematical models confirmed this correlation. The second important risk factor is the age at primary diagnosis. Moreover, BC subcategories influence the overall survival from date of metastatic disease of patients with bone-only metastases. Patients with bone-only metastases and TNBC (p < 0.001; HR = 7.47 (95 % CI: 3.52–15.87) or HER2 overexpressing BC (p = 0.007; HR = 3.04 (95 % CI: 1.36–6.80) have the worst outcome compared to patients with luminal A or luminal B tumours and bone-only metastases. Conclusion The bottom line of different mathematical models is the prior importance of subcategories of breast cancer and the age at primary diagnosis for the appearance of osseous metastases. The primary tumour stage, histological subtype, tumour size, the number of affected lymph nodes, grading and NPI seem to have only a minor influence on the development of bone-only metastases.

Hintergrund Im Rahmen der Pandemie des SARS-CoV-2-Virus erlangte das Patientenkollektiv der Schwangeren früh Aufmerksamkeit. Initial wurde angesichts sich früh abzeichnender Krankheitsfälle bei jüngeren Patienten mit einem erheblichen Aufkommen peripartal zu betreuender, COVID-19-positiver Schwangerer gerechnet. Ziel der Arbeit Diese Arbeit vermittelt einen Einblick in die SARS-CoV-2-Infektionszahlen im Rahmen der geburtshilflichen Anästhesie zu Beginn der Pandemie sowie während der zweiten Infektionswelle in Deutschland. Methoden Über das COALA-Register (COVID-19 related Obstetric Anaesthesia Longitudinal Assessment-Registry) wurden sowohl von März bis Mai 2020 als auch von Oktober 2020 bis Februar 2021 in Deutschland und der Schweiz wöchentlich prospektiv Daten zu Verdachts- und bestätigten SARS-CoV-2-Fällen bei Schwangeren zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt erhoben. Betrachtet wurden die Verteilung dieser auf die Anzahl der Geburten, Zentren und Erhebungswochen sowie mütterliche Charakteristika und Krankheitsverläufe. Ergebnisse Neun Zentren haben im Verlauf 44 SARS-CoV-2-positive Schwangere zum Zeitpunkt der Geburt bei 7167 Geburten (0,6 %) gemeldet (3 Fälle auf 2270 Geburten (0,4 %) und 41 Fälle auf 4897 Geburten (0,8 %)). Berichtet wurden 2 schwere COVID-19-Verläufe (n = 1 mit Todesfolge nach ECMO, n = 1 mit ECMO überlebt). Bei 28 (68 %) Patientinnen verlief die Infektion asymptomatisch. Ein Neugeborenes wurde im Verlauf positiv auf SARS-CoV‑2 getestet. Schlussfolgerung Mithilfe des Registers konnte das Auftreten von Fällen zu Beginn der Pandemie zeitnah eingeschätzt werden. Es traten sporadisch Verdachtsfälle bzw. bestätigte Fälle auf. Aufgrund fehlender flächendeckender Testung muss aber von einer Dunkelziffer asymptomatischer Fälle ausgegangen werden. Während der zweiten Infektionswelle wurden 68 % asymptomatische Fälle gemeldet. Jedoch kann es bei jungen, gesunden Patientinnen ohne das Vorliegen typischer Risikofaktoren zu schwerwiegenden Verläufen kommen.

Background: Ketogenic diets (KDs) or short-term fasting are popular trends amongst supportive approaches for cancer patients. Beta-hydroxybutyrate (3-OHB) is the main physiological ketone body, whose concentration can reach plasma levels of 2–6 mM during KDs or fasting. The impact of 3-OHB on the biology of tumor cells described so far is contradictory. Therefore, we investigated the effect of a physiological concentration of 3 mM 3-OHB on metabolism, proliferation, and viability of breast cancer (BC) cells in vitro. Methods: Seven different human BC cell lines (BT20, BT474, HBL100, MCF-7, MDA-MB 231, MDA-MB 468, and T47D) were cultured in medium with 5 mM glucose in the presence of 3 mM 3-OHB at mild hypoxia (5% oxygen) or normoxia (21% oxygen). Metabolic profiling was performed by quantification of the turnover of glucose, lactate, and 3-OHB and by Seahorse metabolic flux analysis. Expression of key enzymes of ketolysis as well as the main monocarboxylic acid transporter MCT2 and the glucose-transporter GLUT1 was analyzed by RT-qPCR and Western blotting. The effect of 3-OHB on short- and long-term cell proliferation as well as chemo- and radiosensitivity were also analyzed. Results: 3-OHB significantly changed the oxygen consumption rate (OCR) and extracellular acidification rate (ECAR) in BT20 cells resulting in a more oxidative energetic phenotype. MCF-7 and MDA-MB 468 cells had increased ECAR only in response to 3-OHB, while the other three cell types remained uninfluenced. All cells expressed MCT2 and GLUT1, thus being able to uptake the metabolites. The consumption of 3-OHB was not strongly linked to mRNA overexpression of key enzymes of ketolysis and did not correlate with lactate production and glucose consumption. Neither 3-OHB nor acetoacetate did interfere with proliferation. Further, 3-OHB incubation did not modify the response of the tested BC cell lines to chemotherapy or radiation. Conclusions: We found that a physiological level of 3-OHB can change the energetic profile of some BC cell lines. However, 3-OHB failed to influence different biologic processes in these cells, e.g., cell proliferation and the response to common breast cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Thus, we have no evidence that 3-OHB generally influences the biology of breast cancer cells in vitro.