Background: Digitalization offers enormous potential in medicine. In the era of digitalization, the development of the use of digital, technical, and informal resources of breast cancer patients and factors influencing the degree of digitization of patients has been insufficiently researched. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the development of the use of digital technical and informal resources in a well-defined patient cohort. Methods: A longitudinal study on 513 breast cancer patients from 2012 to 2020 was conducted using a questionnaire that included the main aspects of the degree of digitalization, including digital device availability and use, stationary and mobile internet access and use, and communication and information seeking regarding breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Results: The majority of patients (421/513, 82.1%) owned the technical resources to benefit from eHealth, used the internet to obtain information (292/509, 57.4%), and were willing to use new eHealth solutions (379/426, 89%). Two-thirds of the patients discussed information about their cancer on the internet with their doctor, one-third found additional treatment options on the internet, and 15.3% (44/287) of the patients stated that this had changed their cancer therapy. The degree of digitization is increasing yet still significantly depends on 3 factors: (1) age (whereas 100% [39/39] of the 70-year-old group used the internet), (2) education (internet use significantly depended on education, as only 51.8% [59/114] of patients with primary school education used the internet, but 82.4% [126/153] with middle school education and 90.3% [213/236] with high school education used the internet; P<.001), and (3) household size (67.7% [111/164] of patients living alone used the internet, whereas 84.7% [287/339] of patients living in a house with ≥2 people used the internet; P<.001). Conclusions: To implement digital solutions in health care, knowledge of the composition and degree of the use of digital technical and informal resources of the patient group for which the respective solution is developed is crucial for success. Trial Registration: German Register of Clinical Studies DRKS00012364; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00012364

Background: High mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) and programmed cell death markers PD-1 and PD-L1 are immunogenic serum biomarkers that may serve as novel diagnostic tools for cancer diagnosis. Methods: We investigated the four markers in sera of 231 women, among them 76 with ovarian cancer, 87 with benign diseases and 68 healthy controls, using enzyme immunoassays. Discrimination between groups was calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivities at fixed 90% and 95% specificities. Results: HMGB1 levels were significantly elevated and sRAGE levels were decreased in cancer patients as compared to benign and healthy controls. In consequence, the ratio of HMGB1 and sRAGE discriminated best between diagnostic groups. The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the ROC curves for differentiation of cancer vs. healthy were 0.77 for HMGB1, 0.65 for sRAGE and 0.78 for the HMGB1/sRAGE ratio, and slightly lower for the differentiation of cancer vs. benigns with 0.72 for HMGB1, 0.61 for sRAGE and 0.74 for the ratio of both. The highest sensitivities for cancer detection at 90% specificity versus benign diseases were achieved using HMGB1 with 41.3% and the HMGB1/sRAGE ratio with 39.2%, followed by sRAGE with 18.9%. PD-1 showed only minor and PD-L1 no power for discrimination between ovarian cancer and benign diseases. Conclusion: HMGB1 and sRAGE have differential diagnostic potential for ovarian cancer detection and warrant inclusion in further validation studies.

The influence of digitalization on information-seeking, decision-making properties of patients, therapy monitoring, and patient–physician interactions has and will change the global health sector tremendously. With this study, we add knowledge on the degree of digitalization, digital device availability, the use and availability of home and mobile internet access, and the willingness to use novel forms of patient–physician interactions in a group of gynecologic cancer patients. From July 2017 to March 2022, 150 women with a diagnosis of gynecologic malignancy at the University Hospital of Cologne participated in this questionnaire-based cohort study. Any one of three potential internet access devices (stationary computer, smartphone, or tablet) is owned by 94% of patients and the only patient intrinsic factor that is significantly associated with the property of any one of these internet access devices is age. The Internet is used daily or several times per week to assess information on their disease by 92.8%, 90.1% use the Internet for communicational purposes and 71.9% and 93.6% are willing to communicate with their treating physicians via E-Mail or even novel forms of communication, respectively. In conclusion, the predominant majority of gynecologic cancer patients can be reached by modern internet-based E-Health technologies.

Background: Nowadays there still is no sufficient screening tool for ovarian and uterine cancer. Objective: The current study aimed to investigate whether cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) or the combination of both markers are able to act as screening tools for ovarian or uterine cancer. Methods: A total of 275 blood samples from different cohorts (ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, benign control group) were prospectively drawn and analyzed. Results: Established biomarkers TPA and CA-125 showed elevated serum concentrations in patients with malignant tumors as compared to healthy women and women with benign diseases. In ROC curve analyses, both biomarkers were well able to discriminate between malignant and healthy, benign or overall non-malignant cases in the whole sample, with AUCs of 0.842 and above. While TPA was the best diagnostic marker in patients with uterine cancer, CA 125 was the best in patients with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: TPA and CA-125 both showed promising results for the detection of gynecologic malignancies. The combination of CA-125 and TPA did not improve sensitivity in comparison to single markers.