Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignancy in the female population globally. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of postmenopausal BC, BC recurrence, and mortality. Fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene polymorphisms have attracted the most attention due to several single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that may have an impact on obesity and different types of cancer. The primary goal of our work was to assess the association of the SNP rs17817449 FTO, physical status/metabolic changes, and dietary habits with the occurrence of BC. Methods: We conducted research as a population-genetic study including 93 women with a diagnosis of BC during their lifetime. Genomic DNA was extracted from the swabs of the buccal mucosa. Genotyping was achieved by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism. The IBM SPSS Statistics program v. 23.0 was used for statistical analysis. All values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The risk genotype of the FTO gene (rs17817449) GG was detected in 16 subjects (17.2%), the heterozygous TG in 46 subjects (49.5%), while the normal genotype TT was recorded in 29 subjects (31.2%). We found no statistically significant difference in the body mass index values of the three genotype groups, p = 0.72, χ2 = 2.1 and no significant relationship between the allelic or genotypic frequencies of the rs17817449 FTO gene polymorphism and other variables examined in our study. Analysis of the distribution of hereditary diseases in the family according to the molecular subtype of BC showed statistically significant p-values, p = 0.02. Conclusion: While previous research has suggested a potential link between FTO gene polymorphism, obesity, and BC, our study did not find a statistically significant association between the aforementioned variables. Future studies with a larger number of subjects in different populations should confirm the role of the FTO genotype in the risk of BC.

Is it safe to have a pregnancy in women with prior history of hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer? Pregnancy following breast cancer treatments in young women with history of hormone receptor-positive disease is safe with no detrimental effect on patients’ prognosis. Breast cancer is the most common malignancy diagnosed in women of reproductive age. Both physicians and patients continue to have concerns about a potential detrimental effect of pregnancy after breast cancer, particularly in the setting of hormone receptor-positive disease. In recent years, several studies have demonstrated the safety of pregnancy after anticancer treatments in breast cancer survivors. A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library with no language or date restriction up to January 1st, 2023, was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We included retrospective or prospective case-control and cohort studies as well as prospective clinical trials comparing survival outcomes of premenopausal female patients with reported pregnancy or not after diagnosis and treatment for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Included patients were childbearing potential age women with a prior history of hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Outcomes of interest were disease-free survival and overall survival. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted. Higgins I2 index was used to evaluate the degree of inconsistency in the results of the included studies. Pooled HRs were considered statistically significant with a P value of < 0.05 (two-sided). Eight studies were eligible to be included in the final analysis. A total of 3,805 patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer were included in these studies, of whom 1,285 had a pregnancy after treatments. Median follow-up of the included studies ranged from 3.81 years to 15.8 years. In three studies (n = 987 patients) reporting on disease-free survival outcomes, no difference was observed between patients with or without a subsequent pregnancy (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.75 – 1.24, p = 0.781). Six studies (n = 3,504 patients) reported outcomes in terms of overall survival: patients with a pregnancy after breast cancer had better overall survival compared with those without a pregnancy (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 – 0.77, p < 0.05). At the subgroup analysis on timing of pregnancy, no detrimental effect of pregnancy after breast cancer in terms of disease-free survival was observed for patients achieving a late pregnancy (defined as 2 or 5 years after diagnosis) as compared to patients without a subsequent pregnancy (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 – 1.46, p = 0.611). Increased disease-free survival was observed in patients with an early pregnancy (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 – 0.85, p < 0.05). This meta-analysis is based on abstracted data and most of the studies are retrospective cohort studies. Median follow-up in a large proportion of the studies was shorter than 10 years. Adjuvant hormone therapy before and after pregnancy was not available in many studies included. Our results strengthen the evidence that having a pregnancy in women with prior history of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer is safe. not applicable

Background Therapeutic options for human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are developing rapidly. This study aimed to determine the differences in the survival outcomes of patients with HER2-positive mBC in relation to access to anti-HER therapy at 3 oncology centers in upper-middle-income countries (UMICs) and 1 oncology center in a high-income country (HIC). Material/Methods We retrospectively identified 42 patients from Croatia (HIC), 71 patients from Serbia (UMIC), and 57 from Bosnia and Herzegovina (UMIC) diagnosed with HER2-positive mBC who were treated between January 2015 and December 2020. The pathohistological features of the tumors were obtained from the pathological findings, which were made according to standard procedures for each center. Patients were treated depending on the availability of therapy, which differed for centers in different countries. We evaluated disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) based on the availability of first- and second-line anti-HER2 therapy in UMICs vs HIC. Results OS in first-line therapy was better in patients treated with dual HER2 blockade than in patients treated without dual HER2 blockade, P<0.001. OS in second-line therapy was significantly better in patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine than in patients treated with other reported regimens, P=0.004. Conclusions Results of our study showed superior survival among patients who were treated with dual first-line HER2 therapy as well as second-line trastuzumab emtansine therapy than in those patients in other centers where these drugs were not available. Raising awareness about this could help improve the situation.

Introduction/Objective. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different approaches in the treatment of metastatic melanoma in daily clinical practice in a situation with limited and late availability of new drugs in a resource-limited country and to compare these parameters with those reported in clinical studies and from other real-world data. Methods. Main methods included assessment of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Patients were included in the study if they were treated with first or second-line systemic therapy for radiologically/pathologically confirmed metastatic melanoma. Patients were divided into four groups based on the type of therapy they received: chemotherapy (dacarbazin), BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib), BRAF/MEK inhibitors (vemurafenib/cobimetinib and trametinib/dabrafenib) and anti PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab. Results. Regardless of the line of therapy, the calculated median OS in chemotherapy and vemurafenib group was nine months. The median OS in the BRAF/MEK inhibitor group was 14 months and 15 months in the pembrolizumab group. Median PFS in the chemotherapy group was four months, seven months for vemurafenib, in the BRAF/MEK inhibitor group nine months and in the pembrolizumab group six months. There was a statistically significant difference in survival between first and second-line therapy in the pembrolizumab group. Conclusion. Our results showed lower median OS and PFS in comparison to reported data from clinical trials. Compared to other real-world data from countries with similar problems related to the late reimbursement of new drugs, our research has shown similar results.

The most common type of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), which has a high metastatic potential. Even though the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium risk model is conventionally utilized for selection and stratification of patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC), there remains an unmet demand for novel prognostic and predictive markers. The goal of this study was to analyze the expression of Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), Cluster of Differentiation 31 (CD31) to determine microvessel density, and Angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1) in primary kidney tumors, as well as their predictive and prognostic value in patients with metastatic ccRCC (mccRCC) who were treated with first-line sunitinib. The study included 35 mccRCC patients who were treated with first-line sunitinib in period between 2009 and 2019. Immunofluorescence was used to examine biomarker expression in tissue specimens of the primary tumor and surrounding normal kidney tissue. Median disease-free survival (DFS) was longer in patients with negative and low tumor VEGF score than in patients with medium tumor VEGF score (p ═ 0.02). Those with low tumor CD31 expression had a longer median DFS than patients with high tumor CD31 expression (p ═ 0.019). There was no correlation between Ang-1 expression and DFS. The expression of biomarkers in normal kidney tissue was significantly lower than in tumor tissue (p < 0.001). In conclusion, higher VEGF scores and greater CD31 expression were associated with longer DFS, but neither of these biomarkers correlated with progression-free survival or overall survival.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been the main public health issue since the end of 2019. The vaccination campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina started in April 2021, with several vaccines available. Our study aimed to evaluate the acceptance, effects, and tolerability of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 among cancer patients. We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study between 22 October and 30 November 2021, at the Clinic of Oncology, Clinical Center University of Sarajevo. Patients were enrolled during their regular visit to the Clinic of Oncology by agreeing to complete an individual paper questionnaire. The study included 1063 patients with malignant diseases, of whom 681 (64.1%) were adequately vaccinated patients. In the study population, 76.9% of patients reported that they did not experience any side effects due to vaccination, while only 0.5% had side effects, causing a delay in their treatment. Among adequately vaccinated patients, there were 40 patients (3.8%) who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 after the second or booster dose of the vaccine. Five patients (0.5%) were hospitalized due to COVID-19 after being adequately vaccinated. The findings of our study suggest that cancer patients have a higher acceptance of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 than the general population in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Vaccination side effects are tolerable and do not cause major delays in specific cancer treatment. The protective effects of COVID-19 vaccines in the cancer patients presented in our study are comparable to available results of similar studies, which included the general population.

Malignancy is one of the major public health problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Along with breakthroughs in specific oncological therapy, improving the quality of life of cancer patients and management of therapy-induced side effects need to be recognized as a priority in the comprehensive cancer patient care. Fertility loss after cancer treatment is a field requiring special attention due to its various consequences on patients themselves. Although oncofertility is well-recognized area of oncology, low- to middle-income countries are facing issues with its implementation in everyday practice. Increased awareness about fertility preservation is of high priority for all specialists who participate in the medical care of cancer patients. The absence of a systemic solution and lack of expertise led to the founding of Fertility Preservation Working Group of the Oncology Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have made recommendations as an expert consensus with the ultimate goal of making the first step toward enhancement of oncofertility implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

BACKGROUND The alternative medicine is increasingly accepted by modern man. People realize that healing based on natural methods is much more affordable and not more aggressive than taking potent drugs of synthetic origin. The aim of this study was to collect data on the use of complementary agents and alternative medicine in cancer patients treated at the Oncology Clinic of the University Clinical Hospital in Mostar. SUBJECTS AND METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional study that included 100 patients. Data were collected from a questionnaire compiled for this research, which comprised two groups of questions. The first group examined the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents, and the second the modalities of using Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), and health and conceptual reasons for use. RESULTS A total of 72 patients (72.0%) had used a CAM during their anticancer treatment. Only 23% of patients had used CAM before the diagnosis of cancer. Among them, 26 (36.1%) previously discussed the topic with their oncologist. CAMs ranged from herbal medicine (58.3%), cannabinoid oil (19.4%) and different vitamins and minerals (22.2%). CAMs were mainly used to improve the health (40.3%). Among patients who used CAM only 25% find it financially demanding, 90.3% of patients were satisfied with effects of CAMs, and 78.1% would recommend it to other cancer patients. CONCLUSION Our data showed that in our region, many patients used complementary and alternative methods of treatment. These results are very important because they provide information and give a clearer picture of the use of CAM among cancer patients and, accordingly, the right approach of the health practitioners to the patient, leading to optimized cancer therapy and increased safety.

Background The pandemic of Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) poses a major public health challenge, and an effective vaccine is the potential mechanism to resolve this specific situation. The present study aimed to evaluate acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among patients attending the Oncology Clinic of University Clinical Hospital Mostar. Material/Methods This cross-sectional observational study enrolled 364 patients with cancer from the Oncology Clinic of University Clinical Hospital Mostar during February 2021. Data were collected using a questionnaire that captured general information about the participants and their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Results Of the participants, 41.8% answered “Yes” when asked if they would take the vaccine once it becomes available, 37.6% answered “Not sure”, and 20.6% answered “No”. For patients in favor of vaccination, the main reasons reported were fear of getting sick (77.6%), the desire to contribute to herd immunity (57.8%), and trusting the recommendations of health professionals (57.2%). The main reasons for the patients’ vaccination refusal/indecision were doubts about the results from clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines (49.1%), concerns about adverse effects (24.5%), and confusion about the various vaccine options (19.8%). The majority of participants (82.4%) stated that recommendation by their oncologist could influence their decision about vaccination. Of the participants who indicated unwillingness (refusal or indecision) to be vaccinated against COVID-19, 65.3% stated that recommendation by their oncologist could influence their decision about vaccination. Conclusions The findings from the present study showed most patients had refused or were indecisive regarding immunization with COVID-19 vaccine. Increasing physician awareness of this situation may result in higher rates of vaccination.

Background Providing oncology services during a pandemic can contribute to mental health challenges among healthcare workers. The present study aimed to evaluate the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress in healthcare and administrative staff in 5 oncology institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in 2020 during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) questionnaire. Material/Methods A cross-sectional observational study enrolled 175 healthcare and administrative workers from 5 oncology institutions in BiH during December 2020. Data were collected using a questionnaire that captured general information about the participants and a DASS-21 questionnaire. Results Statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the levels of depression, anxiety, and stress (P=0.003, P=0.011, and P=0.022, respectively) among participants with comorbidities connected with increased risk of severe illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared with participants without comorbidities. There was also a statistically significant difference in the levels of stress among participants from different cities (P=0.031). Supplement intake and educational level were significantly related (P=0.012). High levels of stress and anxiety were accompanied by high levels of depression among participants (P<0.01). Conclusions The findings from the present study showed that the COVID-19 pandemic has had an effect on depression, anxiety, and stress levels in oncology staff in BiH. Monitoring these levels and providing interventions and support to oncology staff are increasingly important for their wellbeing and retention at a time of global crisis in healthcare.