Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic triple-negative and hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. This antibody–drug conjugate is currently approved as monotherapy. Palliative radiotherapy is frequently used to treat symptomatic metastases locally. Concurrent use of SG and irradiation was excluded in clinical trials of SG, and there are currently limited published data. We report here a systematic review, as well as a retrospective multi-center study of 17 patients with triple-negative breast cancer who received concurrent SG and radiotherapy. In these patients, concurrent use was found to be efficient, safe and well tolerated. There were no apparent differences in moderate or severe acute toxicity according to the timing of SG administration.

Due to its rarity, there are no randomized trials investigating the outcome of adjuvant radiotherapy in MBC. This study reports on patient and tumor characteristics of 41 consecutive MBC patients treated between 1990 and 2018 and on clinical outcomes after surgical resection of tumors and adjuvant radiotherapy of the chest wall or breast. Local control (LC), locoregional control (LRC), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and toxicity were evaluated. After a median follow-up of 80 months (95% CI: 14.6–213.8 months) there was only one recurrence, in a patient’s locoregional lymph nodes 17 months after start of radiotherapy, resulting in an LC rate of 100% at 5 years and a 5-year LRC rate of 97.4% (standard deviation (SD): 0.025). Five-year DFS and OS rates were 64.6% (SD: 0.085) and 57.2% (SD: 0.082), respectively. Adjuvant radiotherapy was tolerated well without high-grade (CTCAE grade > II) adverse events. After tumor resection and adjuvant radiotherapy, LC and LRC rates in MBC patients are excellent and comparable to results found for female breast cancer (FBC) patients. However, as patients are often diagnosed with locally advanced, higher-risk tumors, distant recurrences remain the major failure pattern.

Objective: This retrospective cohort study compares surgical outcomes among patients with endometrial carcinoma (EC) after the implementation of a robotic-assisted (RA) surgical program at a tertiary care center. Methods: A total of 122 EC patients who underwent surgery between March 2022 and February 2025 were included. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the implementation of RA surgery: Group 1 (March 2022–August 2023) and Group 2 (September 2023–February 2025). Data collected included demographics, surgical approach, operative time, hospital stay, completion of staging procedures, and 30-day postoperative complications. Results: RA laparoscopy was used predominantly in Group 2, replacing conventional laparoscopy (CL). Laparotomy was significantly less frequent in group 2 (11.9% vs. 36.4%; p < 0.001). Among patients with FIGO stage I, all patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in Cohort 2 (100% vs. 71.9%; p < 0.001). Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in Group 2 (3 days vs. 4 days; p < 0.001). A 30-day mortality occurred in one patient (n = 1) within the total study cohort (0.82%) and was attributed to pulmonary embolism on postoperative day 14 after RA laparoscopy. Rates of Grade ≥3 postoperative complications were similar (7.3% vs. 7.5%), as were wound complications (5.5% vs. 3%). The use of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping increased significantly in Group 2 (91% vs. 54.5%; p < 0.001). Completion staging procedures were significantly reduced in group 2 (9.1% vs. 0%; p = 0.017). Conclusions: The integration of RA laparoscopy significantly reduced laparotomy rates and hospital stays while increasing SLN mapping. These results support the continued adoption of RA laparoscopy to enhance MIS and improve patient outcomes.

Background: Genetic counseling and germline genetic testing are essential components of ovarian cancer care; however, their implementation in routine clinical practice remains inconsistent. This study aimed to evaluate the utilization of genetic counseling and testing among patients with ovarian cancer and identify barriers to implementation within routine care. Methods: A single-center, retrospective questionnaire-based study was conducted among patients who underwent surgical treatment for ovarian malignancies between January 2021 and June 2025. Patient-reported data on information provision, referral pathways, organizational access, satisfaction, and barriers were linked with clinical and demographic characteristics. Descriptive analyses were performed, reflecting the exploratory nature of the study. A problem frequency (PF) framework, defined as the proportion of responses indicating a problem, was applied to identify and rank patient-reported barriers. Results: Of 321 identified patients, 61 were deceased prior to study initiation. Among 256 successfully contacted patients, 132 responded (51.6%). Overall, 115/132 (87.1%) reported receiving information regarding genetic counseling, primarily from hospital-based physicians (106/132; 80.3%). Among the 132 questionnaire respondents, 96/132 (72.7%) attended genetic counseling and 93/132 (70.5%) proceeded to genetic testing; pathogenic variants were identified in 26/93 tested patients (28.0%). Genetic counseling among respondents increased from 37.5% in 2021 to 94.7% in 2025. The majority of appointments were self-initiated. The most frequently reported barriers were limited information provision, appointment scheduling difficulties, and travel-related barriers, whereas emotional burden at the time of diagnosis was reported less frequently. Uptake was significantly associated with family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, higher educational attainment, and parity. Notably, nearly half of the participants who had not attended genetic counseling (17/36;47.2%) reported reconsidering uptake after completing the questionnaire. Conclusion: Despite recommendations for universal genetic counseling in ovarian cancer care, gaps in implementation remain evident in routine clinical practice. Organizational and informational barriers represent prominent obstacles to uptake. Our findings highlight the potential value of standardized referral pathways, proactive information provision, and repeated patient engagement to facilitate access to genetic services.