Purpose: To systematically review the current body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for cervical cancer (CC). Material and Methods: Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched for prospective trials assessing immunotherapy in CC patients in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Full-text articles in English and German reporting outcomes of survival, response rates or safety were eligible. Results: Of 4655 screened studies, 51 were included (immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) n=20; therapeutic vaccines n = 25; adoptive cell transfer therapy n=9). Of these, one qualified as a phase III randomized controlled trial and demonstrated increased overall survival following treatment with pembrolizumab, chemotherapy and bevacizumab. A minority of studies included a control group (n = 7) or more than 50 patients (n = 15). Overall, response rates were low to moderate. No response to ICIs was seen in PD-L1 negative patients. However, few remarkable results were achieved in heavily pretreated patients. There were no safety concerns in any of the included studies. Conclusion: Strong evidence on the efficacy of strategies to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer is currently limited to pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, which substantiates an urgent need for large confirmatory trials on alternative immunotherapies. Overall, there is sound evidence on the safety of immunotherapy in CC.

Background: Intermittent fasting (IF) is defined as an eating pattern without calorie restrictions, alternating between periods of fasting and eating. In the past decades IF has not only become a popular weight-reducing diet but is thought to improve Quality of Life (QoL) and fatigue. However, very little evidence exists for the general population. Thus, we aimed to assess the impact of a 16-h fasting period per day over a three-month study period on QoL and especially fatigue in healthy people. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study including healthy subjects. All participants fasted 16 h for at least five days a week while maintaining their normal lifestyle. In the study, we analysed blood samples as well as QoL through standardized questionnaires (WHO-5 questionnaire, Short Form Health 36). Furthermore, we measured the degree of fatigue with the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) as well as compliance, activity records, and weight alterations. All endpoints were evaluated at baseline, after two weeks, four weeks, and three months of IF. Results: A total of 30 participants fasted for the entire study period. The results of the WHO-5 questionnaire (15.6 ± 4.6 vs. 18 ± 3.6, p < 0.0019) demonstrated a significant increase in QoL. For long-term QoL six out of eight domains measured by the Short Form Health 36 (SF-36) significantly improved (e.g., physical health: 92.3 ± 11.6 vs. 96.5 ± 6.3, p = 0.015; mental health: 75.5 ± 12.0 vs. 81.7 ± 9.0; p < 0.001 and body pain: 74.1 ± 31.8 vs. 89.5 ± 14.9; p = 0.008) after three months. Fatigue significantly decreased from 10.3 ± 3.2 to 8.4 ± 2.5; p = 0.002 for mental fatigue and from 12.6 ± 3.8 to 10.7 ± 3.3; p = 0.002 measured by the FAS. The mean FSS-Score at baseline was 3.5 ± 1.2 compared to 2.9 ± 1.1 (scale 1–7) after three months (p < 0.001). Notably, the proliferation marker IGF-1 was significantly reduced. No clinically significant changes in laboratory parameters were observed that would have endangered a participant’s safety. Conclusions: IF according to the 16:8 regime over a fasting period of three months significantly improved several aspects of the QoL and decreased fatigue in healthy people, while maintaining a good safety profile. The practicability of this diet was also demonstrated for shift workers and people with a high percentage of active labour. Apart from the improvement in QoL and fatigue, the significant reduction in IGF-1, which can act as an accelerator of tumour development and progression, might be an indicator of the potential benefits of IF for patients with cancer.

Background: With an increase in robot‐assisted surgery across all specialties, adequate training and credentialing strategies need to be identified to ensure patients safety. The meta‐analysis assesses the transferability of technical surgical skills between laparoscopic surgery, open surgery, and robot‐assisted surgery.Design: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Outcomes were categorized into time, process, product, and composite outcome measures and pooled separately using Hedges'g (standardized mean difference [SMD]). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the effect of study design, virtual reality platforms and task difficulty.Results: Out of 14,120 screened studies, 30 were included in the qualitative synthesis and 26 in the quantitative synthesis. Technical surgical skill transfer was demonstrated from laparoscopic to robot‐assisted surgery (composite: SMD 0.40, 95%‐confidence interval [CI] [0.19; 0.62], time: SMD 0.62, CI [0.33; 0.91]) and vice versa (composite: SMD 0.66, CI [0.33; 0.99], time [basic skills]: SMD 0.36, CI [0.01; 0.72]). No skill transfer was seen from open to robot‐assisted surgery with limited available data.Conclusion: Technical surgical skills can be transferred from laparoscopic to robot‐assisted surgery and vice versa. Robot‐assisted and laparoscopic surgical skills training and credentialing should not be regarded separately, but a reasonable combination could shorten overall training times and increase efficiency. Previous experience in open surgery should not be considered as an imperative prerequisite for training in robot‐assisted surgery. Recommendations for studies assessing skill transfer are proposed to increase comparability and significance of future studies.PROSPERO Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42018104507.

Background: Endometriosis is a multifaceted chronic pain disorder that can have an impact on both physical and mental health. Women suffering from chronic pain may be more susceptible to various health disorders, especially during adversity, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous research has identified resilience as a mediator between internal or external stressors and well-being. Methods: An online survey was conducted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany through patient support groups of women with endometriosis. The Brief Resilience Score (BRS) was employed to evaluate resilience, while the PHQ-4 questionnaire was used to assess self-reported mental health. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to determine resilience’s independent risk and protective parameters. Results: High educational level was found to be an independent supportive moderator of high resilience in women with a resilience score greater than the study population’s median (BRS > 2.66; OR 2.715; 95% CI 1.472–5.007; p = 0.001) but not in women in the highest resilience score quartile (BRS > 3.33). A decrease in perceived social support was detected to be the most powerful independent risk factor for low resilience: OR 0.541, 95% CI 0.307–0.952, p = 0.033 for predicting BRS > 2.66, and OR 0.397, 95% CI 0.189–0.832, p = 0.014 for predicting scores > 3.33 on the BRS scale. A high burden of mental health symptoms, as measured by the PHQ-4 scale, was negatively associated with resilience. Conclusions: Satisfying social support and good mental health were shown to be key resources for resilience. The results of this study may assist in the identification of women at risk for low resilience and the development of resilience-building strategies in patients with endometriosis.

Background: Endometriosis is a multifaceted chronic pain condition that can have a negative impact on mental health. Patients suffering from chronic pain may face an additional psychological burden during adversity, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The main aim of this research was to evaluate the prevalence of self-reported depression and anxiety, the influence of demographic, endometriosis-specific, pandemic-specific factors, and resilience on mental health outcomes of patients with endometriosis. Methods: An online survey was conducted through patient support groups of women suffering from endometriosis during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The PHQ-4 questionnaire, which combines two items of the Patient Health Questionnaire for Depression (PHQ-2) and two items from the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-2) was used to assess self-reported mental health. The Brief Resilience Score (BRS) was employed to evaluate resilience. Independent risk and protective factors for mental health were investigated by multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: The PHQ-4 questionnaire was completed by 274 respondents. More than 40% reached depression (PHQ-2) and anxiety (GAD-2) scores of ≥3, and more than 20% achieved PHQ-2 and GAD-2 scores of ≥5. High resilience was found to be a reliable and strong independent protector for the probability of developing adverse psychological outcomes: OR 0.295, p < 0.001 for developing generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-2 ≥ 3), and OR 0.467, p < 0.001 for having major depression (PHQ-2 ≥ 3). Conclusions: Pain-induced disability is an independent risk factor for developing major depression and anxiety, while resilience was identified as a potential protective parameter in terms of positive psychological outcomes in women with endometriosis. The results of this study may help to identify women at risk for adverse mental health outcomes and should encourage healthcare practitioners to establish strategies for the reduction of negative psychological and psychiatric impacts on patients with endometriosis.

(1) Background: The main aim of this research was to examine the factors leading to pain-induced disability by assessing the impact of demographic, endometriosis-specific, pandemic-specific, and mental health factors. (2) Methods: Women with endometriosis who attended online support groups were invited to respond to an online survey during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. The Pain Disability Index (PDI) was employed to assess disability-related daily functioning. Independent predictors of pain-induced disability were determined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. (3) Results: The mean PDI score of the study population was 31.61 (SD = 15.82), which was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than that reported in a previously published normative study of the German population. In the present study, a high level of pain-induced disability, as defined by scores equal to or higher than the median of the study population, older age (OR 1.063, 95% CI 1.010–1.120, p = 0.020), dysmenorrhea (OR 1.015, 95% CI 1.005–1.026, p = 0.005), dysuria (OR 1.014; 95% CI 1.001–1.027, p = 0.029), lower back pain (OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.007–1.029, p = 0.001), and impaired mental health (OR 1.271, 95% CI 1.134–1.425, p < 0.001) were found to be independent risk factors. Pandemic-specific factors did not significantly influence the pain-induced disability of the participants in this study. (4) Conclusions: The level of pain-induced disability was significantly higher among the women with endometriosis than among women in the normative German validation study. Our findings identified risk factors for experiencing a high level of pain-induced disability, such as demographic and specific pain characteristics. Pandemic-specific factors did not significantly and independently influence the pain-induced disability during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Impaired mental health negatively influenced functioning during daily activities. Thus, women with endometriosis should be managed by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals to prevent negative effects of pain-induced disability on their quality of life.