EndoPredict® in early hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Evaluating consecutive early breast cancer patients, we analyzed both the impact of EndoPredict® on clinical decisions as well as clinico-pathological factors influencing the decision to perform this gene expression test. METHODS: Hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer patients treated between 2011 and 2016 were included in this study to investigate the role of EndoPredict® (EPclin) in the treatment of early breast cancer. A main study aim was to analyze the changes in therapy recommendations with and without EPclin. In addition, the impact of clinico-pathological parameters for the decision to perform EPclin was examined by Pearson's chi-squared test (χ2-test) and Fisher's exact test as well as univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: In a cohort of 869 consecutive early HR-positive, HER-negative breast cancer patients, EPclin was utilized in 156 (18.0%) patients. EPclin led to changes in therapy recommendations in 33.3% (n = 52), with both therapy escalation in 19.2% (n = 30) and de-escalation in 14.1% (n = 22). The clinico-pathological factors influencing the use of EPclin were age (P < 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 0.498), tumor size (P = 0.011, OR 0.071), nodal status (P = 0.021, OR 1.674), histological grade (P = 0.043, OR 0.432), and Ki-67 (P < 0.001, OR 3.599). CONCLUSIONS: EPclin led to a change in therapy recommendations in one third of the patients. Clinico-pathological parameters such as younger age, smaller tumor size, positive nodal status, intermediate histological grade and intermediate Ki-67 had a significant influence on the use of EndoPredict®.

Braces versus Invisalign®: gingival parameters and patients' satisfaction during treatment: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Fixed orthodontic appliances (FOA) temporarily interfere with periodontal health of patients, as the appliance complicates oral hygiene. The use of aligners in orthodontic therapy increased strongly during the last decade. In the literature, the reports about effects of aligner treatment on oral hygiene and gingival conditions are scarce. This cross-sectional study evaluated oral hygiene and patient's satisfaction during orthodontic treatment of patients with FOA or Invisalign®. METHODS: 100 patients (FOA = 50, Invisalign® = 50) were included who underwent orthodontic treatment for more than 6 months. Clinical examinations were performed to evaluate patients' periodontal condition and were compared with clinical data at the beginning of the orthodontic treatment. Oral hygiene, patients' satisfaction and dietary habits were documented by a detailed questionnaire. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney U-Test and Fisher's Exact Test were used; as multiple testing was applied, a Bonferroni correction was performed. RESULTS: At the time of clinical examinations, patients with FOA were in orthodontic therapy for 12.9 ± 7.2 months, whereas patients with Invisalign® were in orthodontic therapy for 12.6 ± 7.4 months. Significantly better gingival health conditions were recorded in Invisalign® patients (GI: 0.54 ± 0.50 for FOA versus 0.35 ± 0.34 for Invisalign®; SBI: 15.2 ± 7.6 for FOA versus 7.6 ± 4.1 for Invisalign®), whereas the amount of dental plaque was also less but not significantly different (API: 37.7 % ± 21.9 for FOA versus 27.8 % ± 24.6 for Invisalign®). The evaluation of the questionnaire showed greater patients' satisfaction in patients treated with Invisalign® than with FOA. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with Invisalign® have a better periodontal health and greater satisfaction during orthodontic treatment than patients treated with FOA.

Prospective randomized comparison of conventional instruments and the Harmonic Focus(®) device in breast-conserving therapy for primary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, surgeons have utilized Harmonic instruments to perform breast cancer resection. Retrospective and prospective studies have demonstrated that the use of this surgical device for mastectomy and axillary dissection can reduce perioperative blood loss, seroma formation, and duration and total amount of drainage. No study has analyzed the feasibility of Harmonic instruments in breast-conserving surgery. We conducted a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing Harmonic instrument and conventional surgery in the performance of breast-conserving surgery and axillary procedures to determine differences in surgical procedures, postoperative outcome, and complications. METHODS: One hundred and six patients with operable breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery at a single institution between December 2009 and January 2011 were included in the analysis. Surgery was performed in 52 patients with the Harmonic Focus(®) device and in 54 with scissors and electrocautery. This study focused on operative time, drainage volume, and postoperative outcome measures like blood loss, surgery related complications and patient-reported postoperative pain. RESULTS: We found a multivariable independent influence in axillary seroma formation and volume of breast drainage with HS. Evident difference in volume and duration of axillary and breast drainage, subjective and objective postoperative pain, reduction in serum hemoglobin, size and weight of resected breast tissue and length of hospital stay in favor of the Harmonic instrument could also be shown. DISCUSSION: The Harmonic instrument provides key benefits in surgical technique, postoperative outcome, and complication rates in breast cancer surgery.