Observational Study of Men and Women with Breast Cancer in Terms of Overall Survival.

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and the leading cause of cancer death in women. Less than 1% of breast cancer cases are male breast cancers. Although there has been significant progress made in the management of breast cancer, due to its rarity among men, the question of whether men and women with breast cancer have the same treatment response and survival rate still needs to be answered. The primary goal of this study is to compare survival outcomes between male and female breast cancer patients. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This cohort study represents a retrospective and anonymized data analysis of 2162 breast cancer cases (19 males and 2143 females), registered over a period of 12 years, from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2021, in the Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Diakoneo Diak Klinikum Schwäbisch Hall, Germany. RESULTS: According to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the estimated overall 3-year survival rate was 91.1% for women and 88.9% for men. The log-rank test of equality of survival distributions indicated a statistically significant difference in survival times between the two groups (p = 0.009). In the subsequent age-matched Kaplan-Meier analysis, the p-value was below the significance threshold (p = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Male breast cancer is a rare disease that may show some particularities in terms of survival compared to female breast cancer.

How the Mode of Delivery Is Influenced by Patient's Opinions and Risk-Informed Consent in Women with a History of Caesarean Section? Is Vaginal Delivery a Real Option after Caesarean Section?

Background/Objectives: In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in the rates of caesarean section (CS), being one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. For the following pregnancy, the previous CS represents the backbone of the risks and complications, such as uterine scar formation, uterine rupture, massive bleeding, and serious negative outcomes for both the mother and child. Our study followed patients with a history of CS from the birth planning prenatal check-up to delivery. Methods: We reviewed the records of 125 pregnant women with previous CS who presented in the third trimester for a prenatal check-up and completed our questionnaire from March 2021 to April 2022 in the Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Diakoneo Diak Klinikum Schwäbisch Hall, Germany. Results: Before the prenatal check-up, 74 patients (59.2%) preferred vaginal delivery (VD), while 51 (40.8%) preferred CS. After discussing birth planning with the obstetrician, 72 women (57.6%) decided upon VD, while 53 (42.4%) preferred CS. Ultimately, 78 (62.4%) of women gave birth through CS (either planned or by medical necessity) and 47 (37.6%) gave birth vaginally (either natural or per vacuum extraction). Conclusions: VD for patients with CS in their medical history is a real option. The patient must be well informed about the risks and benefits of the medical situation and should be empowered and supported on their chosen mode of delivery, which should be respected.

Lipid Profile Variations in Pregnancies with and without Cardiovascular Risk: Consequences for Both Mother and Newborn.

Background: Maternal cardiovascular risk and its implications can have significant repercussions for both the mother and the child. This study compares the lipid profiles of two distinct groups of pregnant women, those with and without cardiovascular risk, to shed light on its effects on maternal and outcomes for newborns. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 86 pregnant women, dividing them into two groups: Group 1 (n = 46, healthy pregnancies) and Group 2 (n = 40, pregnancies with cardiovascular risk factors). The data collected included maternal demographics, smoking history, pre-existing pathologies, and a range of laboratory measures. Neonatal outcomes were also recorded. Results: Group 2 showed a significant increase in the percentage of newborns with abnormal APGAR scores (p-value < 0.0001), congenital abnormalities (p-value < 0.0001), severe prematurity (p-value < 0.0001), and neonatal mortality rates (p-value < 0.0001), as well as differences in birth weight (p-value = 0.0392) and therapy usage (surfactant: p-value < 0.001, steroids p-value = 0.004, and antibiotics p-value < 0.001). Regarding laboratory measures, Group 2 exhibited significantly elevated levels of total cholesterol, LDL-C (p-value < 0.0001), ApoB (p-value < 0.0001), Lp(A) (p-value = 0.0486), triglycerides (p-value < 0.0001), and hs-CRP (p-value = 0.0300). Discussion: These results underscore the elevated risk associated with pregnancies complicated by cardiovascular risk factors. Group 2 demonstrated a more concerning clinical profile, with a higher prevalence of detrimental neonatal outcomes and different lipid and inflammatory profiles, signifying a potential pathophysiological link. Conclusions: The differential lipid profiles and adverse neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with cardiovascular risks highlight the urgency of effective risk stratification and management strategies in this population.

A Retrospective Assessment of Thrombophilia in Pregnant Women with First and Second Trimester Pregnancy Loss.

Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL) affects between 1% to 5% of women of reproductive age. It is widely believed that RPL is a complex disorder that is influenced by chromosomal abnormalities, genetic mutations, uterine anatomic deformity, endocrine dysfunction, immunologic factors, infections, and the environment. Thrombotic disorders are a frequent cause of RPL, accounting for almost half of all cases; however, in the rest of the cases, the cause of RPL remains unclear. Therefore, in this study, it was planned to determine the genetic mutations involved in RPL during the first and second trimester of pregnancy. An observational retrospective cohort study was conducted in 2021, collecting data from 157 first trimester miscarriages and 54 s trimester pregnancies. All patients with a panel of laboratory and genetic analysis for thrombophilia were included for data analysis. It was observed that four factors were significantly more prevalent in one of the groups. Factor V Leiden (FVL) homozygosity and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) antibodies were statistically significantly more common in pregnant women who suffered first trimester pregnancy losses. On the other hand, Protein C deficiency and Glycoprotein Ia polymorphism were statistically significantly more frequent in the second trimester group. The strongest independent risk factors for first trimester pregnancy loss were FVL and prothrombin (PT) compound mutations (OR = 3.11), followed by FVL homozygous mutation (OR = 3.66), and APS antibodies (OR = 4.47). Regarding second trimester pregnancy loss risk factors, the strongest were FVL and PT compound (OR = 3.24), followed by Glycoprotein Ia polymorphism (OR = 3.61), and respectively, APS antibodies (OR = 3.85). Numerous thrombophilic risk factors for early and late pregnancy loss have been found, including several mutations that seem to occur more often either during the first or the second trimester. Even though we are aware of risk-free and efficient diagnostics for thrombophilia abnormalities, no intervention has been proved to be clearly successful after the detection of these variables.