The high morbidity and mortality of cancer pose a severe challenge to human health. Traditional diagnostic and therapeutic strategies still exhibit obvious limitations in early diagnostic sensitivity, therapeutic precision, and real-time monitoring of treatment efficacy. The development of nanotechnology has provided novel solutions for precision cancer theranostics. Among nanomaterials, gold nanoparticles (AuNPs) have become a research hotspot in tumor nanomedicine due to their tunable size and morphology, excellent localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) effect, and favorable biocompatibility. However, despite encouraging preclinical outcomes, several challenges hinder their clinical translation, including an incomplete understanding of long-term toxicity, complex in vivo biological interactions, the lack of standardized evaluation protocols, and regulatory uncertainties and manufacturing reproducibility issues. This paper systematically reviews the physicochemical and biological mechanisms of AuNPs in cancer theranostics, and summarizes the latest research advances of AuNPs in cancer detection and diagnosis (including biomarker detection and multimodal imaging) as well as in therapeutic fields, covering photothermal therapy (PTT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), radiosensitization, targeted drug and nucleic acid delivery, and immunotherapy-assisted strategies. Furthermore, we discuss the development of intelligent and stimuli-responsive theranostic nanoplatforms based on AuNPs, and outline their future prospects in precision medicine and personalized cancer therapy, with particular emphasis on the requirements for clinical translation, including safety evaluation, large-scale production, and regulatory approval pathways.

Background: The microorganisms in breast tissue and its surrounding environment play a critical role in the development and progression of breast cancer (BC). This study aims to characterize BC-associated microbiota via 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequencing to explore potential pathogenic mechanisms and support early diagnosis and personalized treatment. Methods: Tumor and normal adjacent tissue (NAT) samples from 31 BC patients were analyzed by 16S rRNA sequencing targeting five variable regions. Microbial composition was analyzed via the Short MUltiple Regions Framework (SMURF) pipeline. Alpha and beta diversity analyses were conducted to compare the microbial communities between the BC and NAT groups, and among different BC subgroups stratified by the molecular subtype, clinical stage, histological grade, and proliferation index (Ki-67). Differential microbial taxa were identified using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe). Functional pathways were predicted using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database. Results: No significant differences in alpha or beta diversity were observed between the BC and NAT groups (P>0.05). The LEfSe revealed that Flavobacteriales, Comamonas, and Delftia were enriched in BC. The KEGG pathway predictions showed that the ascorbate and aldarate metabolism, lysosome, and other glycan degradation pathways were upregulated in BC. Brevundimonas was the dominant genus in the high Ki-67 (H-Ki-67) group, in which, the glycolysis/gluconeogenesis, bacterial toxins, and isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathways were also shown to be upregulated (P<0.05). Conclusions: Overall, microbial diversity was similar between the BC and NAT groups; however, distinct microbial profiles were identified in the BC tissue group and among the clinicopathological subgroups. Brevundimonas was the predominant genus in the H-Ki-67 group. This study provides novel insights and potential targets that may extend our understanding of BC-related microbial mechanisms and advance microbiota-based therapies.

In this study, we aimed to explore the safety and vaccination coverage data of Chinese patients with breast cancer receiving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. The patients were recruited from 41 hospitals across 20 Chinese provinces. The vaccination coverage was approximately 22.4%, and the frequency of total adverse events was 13.3% after the first dose and 9.9% after the second dose. The most frequent adverse reaction within 14 days of the first dose was local pain (5.7%). Unvaccinated patients were very likely to reject the vaccine rather than be hesitant in patients with old age (odds ratio [OR], 1.238; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.101–1.391), chronic disease history (OR, 1.189; 95% CI, 1.057–1.337), and cancer relapse (OR, 1.398; 95% CI, 1.233–1.585). Of the unvaccinated patients with breast cancer, 54.1% opted to receive COVID-19 vaccines if more data were available. Considering the safety but low vaccination coverage for breast cancer, increased positive attitudes and acceptance toward COVID-19 vaccines are important.

Differentiating breast lesions relies on imaging and pathological biopsy. Ultrasound viscoelastic imaging quantitatively assesses tissue stiffness, while s

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: `The widespread vaccination of the novel coronavirus vaccine (COVID-19 vaccine) has become one of the most likely effective means to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Tumor patients with high risk of infection, high incidence of serious events and high mortality should be the focus of epidemic prevention and treatment in the setting of COVID-19. But real-world data on the safety of vaccination for breast cancer patients are still unknown. Objective: This study aims to further analyze the safety of COVID-19 vaccine in vaccinated breast cancer patients. Methods: In the CSCO BC NCP-02 study, breast cancer patients who seek medical advice from October 2021 to December 2021were screened, from whom the vaccinated patients were enrolled in order to analysis the safety of vaccination. Results: The CSCO BC NCP-02 study screened 5766 patients who received COVID-19 vaccine, 45.1% (2599/5766) of the population were vaccinated before diagnosis of breast cancer, 41.3% (2379/5766) of the population were vaccinated after diagnosis of breast cancer, and the time of vaccination or diagnosis in 13.6% (784/5766) of the patients was unknown. Among breast cancer patients, 85.4% (2032/2379) were vaccinated one year after breast cancer diagnosis, and 95.4% (2270/2379) were vaccinated in the early breast cancer stage. Of all patients, 93.9% (5415/5766) received inactivated vaccine, 3.7% received recombinant subunit vaccine, 2.4% received other vaccines, including adenovirus and mRNA vaccine. In the first dose, the highest incidence of AE was 24.4% (95%CI, 11.2-37.5) for these received adenovirus vaccine. The lowest was 12.5% (95%CI: 11.6-13.4) for these received inactivated vaccines. In the second dose, both inactivated vaccines (8.7%, 95%CI:8.0-9.5) and recombinant vaccine (8.7%, 95%CI:5.5-12.0) showed the same incidence of AEs. Patients with metastatic breast cancer had the highest incidence of AEs (16.5%, 95%CI:9.5-23.5) at the first dose. The total incidence of AE vaccinated before and after diagnosis of breast cancer was 16.4% and 16.9%, respectively. The most common AEs were local pain (11.1% vs 9.1%), fatigue (5.5% vs 6.3%) and muscle soreness (2.3% vs 3.6%). The type of vaccines (OR=0.937,95% CI：0.689-1.273) and time window of vaccination (OR=0.919,95% CI：0.785-1.077) did not affect the incidence of AEs. Conclusions: Compared with the patients vaccinated before diagnosis of breast cancer, the incidence of AEs of COVID-19 vaccine in breast cancer patients was not significantly increased. It is safe for these breast cancer patients to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Clinical Trial: ChiCTR2200055509

BACKGROUND The widespread use of vaccines against the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become one of the most effective means to establish a population immune barrier. Patients with cancer are vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, adverse events, and high mortality, and should be the focus of epidemic prevention and treatment. However, real-world data on the safety of vaccines for patients with breast cancer are still scarce. OBJECTIVE This study aims to compare the safety of COVID-19 vaccines between patients vaccinated before or after being diagnosed with breast cancer. METHODS Patients with breast cancer who sought medical advice from October 2021 to December 2021 were screened. Those who received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled in this study to analyze the safety of the vaccines. The primary outcome was patient-reported adverse events (AEs). All events after vaccine injection were retrospectively documented from the patients. RESULTS A total of 15,455 patients with breast cancer from 41 hospitals in 20 provinces in China were screened, and 5766 patients who received COVID-19 vaccines were enrolled. Of those enrolled, 45.1% (n=2599) of patients received vaccines before breast cancer diagnosis, 41.3% (n=2379) were vaccinated after diagnosis, and 13.6% (n=784) did not known the accurate date of vaccination or cancer diagnosis. Among the patients vaccinated after diagnosis, 85.4% (n=2032) were vaccinated 1 year after cancer diagnosis and 95.4% (n=2270) were vaccinated during early-stage cancer. Of all 5766 vaccinated patients, 93.9% (n=5415) received an inactivated vaccine, 3.7% (n=213) received a recombinant subunit vaccine, and 2.4% (n=138) received other vaccines, including adenovirus and mRNA vaccines. In the first injection of vaccines, 24.4% (n=10, 95% CI 11.2-37.5) of patients who received an adenovirus vaccine reported AEs, compared to only 12.5% (n=677, 95% CI 11.6-13.4) of those who received an inactivated vaccine. Patients with metastatic breast cancer reported the highest incidence of AEs (n=18, 16.5%, 95% CI 9.5-23.5). Following the second injection, patients who received an inactivated vaccine (n=464, 8.7%, 95% CI 8.0-9.5) and those who received a recombinant vaccine (n=25, 8.7%, 95% CI 5.5-12.0) reported the same incidence of AEs. No significant differences in patient-reported AEs were found between the healthy population and patients with breast cancer (16.4% vs 16.9%, respectively); the most common AEs were local pain (11.1% vs 9.1%, respectively), fatigue (5.5% vs 6.3%, respectively), and muscle soreness (2.3% vs 3.6%, respectively). The type of vaccine and time window of vaccination had little impact on patient-reported AEs. CONCLUSIONS Compared with patients vaccinated before breast cancer diagnosis, there were no significant differences in patient-reported AEs in the patients vaccinated after diagnosis. Thus, it is safe for patients with breast cancer, especially for those in the early stage, to receive COVID-19 vaccines. CLINICALTRIAL Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200055509; https://tinyurl.com/33zzj882