Bad Kreuznach

This non-interventional study aims to provide information on real-world effectiveness, safety and tolerability, management of adverse events, QoL and patient compliance of patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence treated with ribociclib in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) ± luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) with curative intent according to the current effective local summary of product characteristics. In order to put the results of patients treated with ribociclib into perspective, socio-economic data, data on QoL and patient compliance will also be collected from patients treated with abemaciclib + endocrine therapy (ET) ± LHRH as described in the current effective local summary of product characteristics. To understand reasons for treatment decision, and to analyze the clinical adoption of ribociclib + AI ± LHRH after EU approval over time, baseline data will be collected from cohorts of ribociclib + AI ± LHRH, abemaciclib + ET ± LHRH, and additionally from patients treated with ET monotherapy ± LHRH and analyzed cross-sectionally. The study is planned to be rolled out into a broad set of German and Austrian breast centers and gynecological practices to describe clinical routine in a representative subset of the local healthcare eco-system. It will gather insights into the potential benefits and risks associated with ribociclib + AI ± LHRH in the adjuvant treatment of HR+/HER2- eBC patients at high risk of recurrence. This knowledge will inform about clinical decision-making and contribute to improved patient outcomes in routine practice.

The presence of a BRAFV600E mutation is a marker of poor prognosis in patients with mCRC and associated with a median overall survival (mOS) of approximately 12 to 14 months compared to 20 to 25 months for pa-tients with BRAF wild-type tumors. After 1st line therapy, treatment out-comes with standard therapy are poor in patients with BRAF-mutated mCRC, with response rates (ORR) of ≤ 11%, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) between 1.8 and 2.8 months, and a mOS between 4.1 and 6.2 months. Failure to achieve adequate survival outcomes with standard treatment regimens in patients with BRAF-mutated mCRC has encouraged efforts to combine multiple targeted therapies: With 665 randomized patients, the BEACON CRC trial represents the largest trial and is currently the only phase III study in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. After a safety lead in for dose confirmation of the triplet regimen, the phase III part was per-formed with a total of 665 patients, randomized 1:1:1 to either receive encorafenib plus binimetinib and cetuximab (triplet) or encorafenib plus cetuximab (doublet) or FOLFIRI / IRI plus cetuximab (control). The BEACON CRC study met its primary endpoints Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Overall Survival (OS) comparing Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab vs. Chemotherapy + Cetuximab (ORR: 26 vs. 2%, p\<0.001; OS: median 9.0 vs. 5.4 months, HR 0.52, p\<0.001). The BEACON CRC study was alpha-controlled also for the secondary endpoint comparing Encorafenib + Cetuximab vs. Chemotherapy + Cetuximab in terms of ORR and OS and showed a statistically significant advantage (ORR: 20 vs. 2%, p\<0.001; OS: median 8.4 vs. 5.4 months, HR 0.60, p\<0.001). In terms of safety, the overall frequency of adverse events grade 3/4 was 58% (En-corafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab) vs. 50% (Encorafenib + Cetuximab) vs. 61% (Chemotherapy + Cetuximab). Analysis of Quality of Life data resulted in a longer maintenance of Quality of Life in the Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab arm and the Encorafenib + Cetuximab arm com-pared to Chemotherapy + Cetuximab. Between Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab and Encorafenib + Cetuximab, no relevant differences were reported. With a longer Follow-Up (12.8 months) the updated OS data showed a median OS of 9.3 months in both the Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab arm and the Encorafenib + Cetuximab arm compared to 5.9 months in the control arm. Updated ORR rates were 27% in the triplet arm (p\<0.0001 vs. control), 20% in the doublet arm (p\<0.0001 vs. control) and 2% in the control arm. The safety and tolerability were adequate, manage-able and consistent with the known profiles of BRAF-, MEK-, and EGFR-inhibitors. Regarding the triplet combination, the most common adverse events of any grade were diarrhea (triplet: 62%; control: 48%), dermatitis acneiform (triplet: 49%; control: 39%), nausea (triplet: 45%; control: 41%), and vomiting (triplet: 38%; control: 29%). Regarding the doublet combina-tion, the most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (34%), diarrhea (33%), fatigue (doublet 30%; triplet 33%; control 27%) and derma-titis acneiform (29%). The most common updated grade ≥3 adverse events regarding the triplet combination were diarrhea (triplet: 11%; control: 10%), abdominal pain (triplet: 6%; control: 5%), nausea (triplet: 5%; control: 2%,vomiting (triplet: 5%; control: 3%) and intestinal obstruction (triplet 5%; control 3%). With the doublet regimen, the most common updated grade ≥3 adverse events were intestinal obstruction (doublet 5%), asthenia (doublet 4%; triplet 4%; control 5%), fatigue (doublet 4%; triplet 2%; control 5%), diarrhea (3%) and abdominal pain (3%). Based on these data, it is expected that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) will approve encorafenib plus cetuximab for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic BRAFV600E-mutant CRC, who have received prior systemic therapy. Data from pivotal clinical trials are usually based on a selected patient population in order to provide standardized results in the given indication. However, after marketing authorization usage in a broader patient popula-tion is to be expected. Therefore, BERINGCRC - designed as a prospective (allowing initial retrospective documentation), longitudinal, non-interventional study - will investigate the real-world effectiveness, quality of life, safety and tolerability of encorafenib and cetuximab in BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC patients, who have received prior systemic therapy.

Employees in hospitals are exposed to various stressors and can be at risk of psychological stress. To counteract this, resilience programs are increasingly being offered. Most interventions focus on individual resilience. In this study, the focus is on the resilience of teams. For this reason, this research paper will focus on the Tea(m)Time intervention. Tea(m)Time is a health promotion intervention that combines the risk assessment of mental stress with a focus on team resilience. In order to generate knowledge about the Tea(m)Time intervention, this study aims to identify factors that promote and inhibit its implementation and mediate its effectiveness. The aim is to gain insights into the promotion of resilience in teams. The aim is to conduct the survey of the participants in the intervention group and the control group at three different points in time.

Many approaches to the surgical treatment of OF-P have been tried, but no one method has stood out as particularly successful. The placement of three implants, including implants that could minimise motion in the sacroiliac joint through early fixation and long-term fusion of the sacroiliac joint, can prevent micromotion in the fracture and thereby improve the clinical outcome of OF-Ps. The iFuse-3D implant was shown to be safe and effective for chronic sacroiliac pain in non-osteoporotic patients. The primary aim is to assess the proportion of patients operated on using iFuse-3D in conjunction with transiliac-transsacral screws who regain pre-fracture mobility by the time of hospital discharge.