Background: Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is an appropriate treatment for women with the climacteric syndrome. The estrogen component of MHT effectively alleviates climacteric symptoms but also stimulates the endometrium and thus may increase the risk of endometrial cancer (EC). Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify controlled and uncontrolled clinical trials reporting on the prevalence and/or incidence of EC among women using MHT. Results: 31 publications reporting on 21,306 women with EC diagnosed during or after MHT were identified. A significantly reduced risk of EC among continuous-combined (cc)MHT users with synthetic progestins (SPs) was demonstrated in 10/19 studies with odds ratios (ORs)/hazard ratios (HRs) between 0.24 and 0.71. Only one study documented an increased risk of EC among long-term users (≥10 years), not confirmed in three other sub-group analyses of women with ≥6, ≥5, and >10 years of ccMHT use. A significantly increased risk of EC among users of sequential-combined (sc)MHT with SPs was demonstrated in 6/12 studies with ORs/HRs between 1.38 and 4.35. Number of days of progestin per month was a significant modulator of EC risk. A decreased risk of EC was seen in obese women. Two studies documented an increased risk of EC among users of cc/scMHT with micronized progesterone. A significantly increased risk of EC among estrogen-only MHT users was demonstrated in 9/12 studies with ORs/HRs between 1.45 and 4.46. The adverse effect of estrogen-only MHT was greatest among obese women. Conclusion: ccMHT with SPs reduces the risk of EC, whereas estrogen-only MHT increases the risk. scMHT with SPs and cc/scMHT with micronized progesterone increase the risk of EC depending on type of progestin, progestin dosage, and duration of MHT use.

Background: Radiotherapy can induce cardiac injury in left-sided breast cancer cases. Cardiac-sparing irradiation using the deep inspiration breath-hold (DIBH) technique can achieve substantial dose reduction to vulnerable cardiac substructures compared with free breathing (FB). This study evaluated the dosimetric differences between both techniques at a single institution. Methods: From 2017 to 2019, 130 patients with left-sided breast cancer underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS; n = 121, 93.1%) or mastectomy (ME; n = 9, 6.9%) along with axillary lymph node staging (n = 105, 80.8%), followed by adjuvant irradiation in DIBH technique; adjuvant systemic therapy was included if applicable. 106 (81.5%) patients received conventional and 24 (18.5%) hypofractionated irradiation. Additionally, 12 patients received regional nodal irradiation. Computed tomography (CT) scans in FB and DIBH position were performed for all patients. Intrafractional 3D position monitoring of the patient surface in deep inspiration and breath gating was performed using Sentinel and Catalyst HD 3D surface scanning systems (C-RAD, Catalyst, C‑RAD AB, Uppsala, Sweden). Individual coaching and determination of breathing amplitude during the radiation planning CT was performed. Three-dimensional treatment planning was performed using standard tangential treatment portals (6 or 18 MV). The delineation of cardiac structures and both lungs was done in both the FB and the DIBH scan. Results: All dosimetric parameters for cardiac structures were significantly reduced (p < 0.01 for all). The mean heart dose (Dmean) in the DIBH group was 1.3 Gy (range 0.5–3.6) vs. 2.2 Gy (range 0.9–8.8) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The Dmean for the left ventricle (LV) in DIBH was 1.5 Gy (range 0.6–4.5), as compared to 2.8 Gy (1.1–9.5) with FB (p < 0.001). The parameters for LV (V10 Gy, V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V23 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy) were reduced by about 100% (p < 0.001). The LAD Dmean in the DIBH group was 4.1 Gy (range 1.2–33.3) and 14.3 Gy (range 2.4–37.5) in the FB group (p < 0.001). The median values for LAD such as V15 Gy, V20 Gy, V25 Gy, V30 Gy, and V40 Gy decreased by roughly 100% (p < 0.001). An increasing volume of left lung in the DIBH position resulted in dose sparing of cardiac structures. Conclusion: For all ascertained dosimetric parameters, a significant dose reduction could be achieved in DIBH technique.

Summary The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer, first published in April 2018, was reviewed in its entirety between April 2020 and January 2022 and updated. The review was carried out at the request of German Cancer Aid as part of the Oncology Guidelines Program and the lead coordinators were the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Gynecology Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Cancer Aid (DKH). The guideline update was based on a systematic search and assessment of the literature published between 2016 and 2020. All statements, recommendations and background texts were reviewed and either confirmed or amended. New statements and recommendations were included where necessary.Aim The use of evidence-based risk-adapted therapies to treat women with endometrial cancer of low risk prevents unnecessarily radical surgery and avoids non-beneficial adjuvant radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimum level of radical surgery and indicates whether chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiation therapy is necessary. This should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer and the quality indicators based on the guideline aim to provide the basis for the work of certified gynecological cancer centers.Methods The guideline was first compiled in 2018 in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines and was updated in 2022. The update included an adaptation of the source guidelines identified using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). The update also used evidence reviews which were created based on selected literature obtained from systematic searches in selected literature databases using the PICO process. The Clinical Guidelines Service Group was tasked with carrying out a systematic search and assessment of the literature. Their results were used by interdisciplinary working groups as a basis for developing suggestions for recommendations and statements which were then modified during structured online consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI process to achieve a consensus.Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline provides recommendations on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and hereditary factors. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer and the risk factors for developing endometrial cancer are presented. The options for screening and the methods used to diagnose endometrial cancer are outlined. Recommendations are given for the prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of hereditary forms of endometrial cancer. The use of geriatric assessment is considered and existing structures of care are presented.

Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) refers to the abnormal adhesion of the placenta to the myometrium, with varying degrees of severity. Placenta accreta involves adhesion to the myometrium, placenta increta invades the myometrium, and placenta percreta extends through the serosa to adjacent organs. The condition is linked to deficient decidualization in scarred uterine tissue, and the risk increases when placenta previa is present and with each prior cesarean delivery. Other risk factors include advanced maternal age, IVF, short intervals between cesareans, and smoking. PAS incidence has risen due to the increase in cesarean deliveries. Placenta previa combined with PAS significantly raises the risk of severe peripartum bleeding, often necessitating a cesarean section with a total hysterectomy. Recognizing PAS prepartum is essential, with sonographic indicators including intraplacental lacunae and uterovesical hypervascularization. However, PAS can be present without sonographic signs, making clinical risk factors crucial for diagnosis. Effective management requires a multidisciplinary approach and proper infrastructure. This presentation covers PAS cases treated at University Hospital Freiburg, detailing patient conditions, diagnostic methods, treatments and outcomes.

Purpose: The evidence-based (S3) guideline “Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas” (AWMF Registry No. 032/044OL) published by the German Guideline Program in Oncology (GGPO) covers all aspects of sarcoma treatment with 229 recommendations. Representatives of all medical specialties involved in sarcoma treatment contributed to the guideline. This paper compiles the most important recommendations for surgeons selected by delegates from the surgical societies. Methods: A Delphi process was used. Delegates from the surgical societies involved in guideline process selected the 15 recommendations that were most important to them. Votes for similar recommendations were tallied. From the resulting ranked list, the 10 most frequently voted recommendations were selected and confirmed by consensus in the next step. Results: The statement “Resection of primary soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities should be performed as a wide resection. The goal is an R0 resection” was selected as the most important term. The next highest ranked recommendations were the need for a preoperative biopsy, performing preoperative MRI imaging with contrast, and discussing all cases before surgery in a multidisciplinary sarcoma committee. Conclusion: The evidence-based guideline “Adult Soft Tissue Sarcomas” is a milestone to improve the care of sarcoma patients in Germany. The selection of the top ten recommendations by surgeons for surgeons has the potential to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the guideline and thus improve the overall outcome of sarcoma patients.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of pathological tumor-free margin distance on survival in SCC patients treated with surgery alone. Methods: This retrospective study included 128 patients with node-negative disease that received no adjuvant treatment. Disease-free and overall survival were analyzed according to pathological tumor-free margin distance. Results: The patients were subclassified into three resection margin category groups: “1 to 3 mm” (n = 42), “>3 to 8 mm” (n = 47) or “>8 mm” (n = 39). Thirty-nine of the 128 patients (30.5%) developed recurrent disease. Median follow-up for disease-free survival (DFS) was 6.49 years (95% CI 5.16 years; 7.62 years), and median follow-up for overall survival (OS) was 6.29 years (95% CI 5.45 years; 7.33 years). The 5-year DFS rate was 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62–0.79), and the 5-year OS rate was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71–0.87). Regarding the survival outcome, there were no independent significant differences in either disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.300) or overall survival (p = 1.000) among patients within the three tumor-free resection margin categories. Multivariate analyses did not show any statistically significant association between tumor-free resection margin distance and recurrent disease or death, either when analyzed as a categorical variable or when analyzed as a continuous variable. Conclusion: The present study did not show a significant impact of pathological tumor-free resection margin distance following surgery in patients with node-negative SCC of the vulva (that did not receive adjuvant treatment) on disease-free and overall survival.