Refine
Document Type
- Article (14)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
- breast cancer (6)
- brain metastases (3)
- Diagnostik (2)
- Früherkennung (2)
- Mammakarzinom (2)
- Nachsorge (2)
- Richtlinie (2)
- adjuvant therapy (2)
- adjuvante Therapie (2)
- clinical benefit (2)
Institute
- Medizin (14)
Ziele: Das Ziel dieser offiziellen Leitlinie, die von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) und der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft (DKG) publiziert und koordiniert wurde, ist es, die Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms zu optimieren.
Methoden: Der Aktualisierungsprozess der S3-Leitlinie aus 2012 basierte zum einen auf der Adaptation identifizierter Quellleitlinien und zum anderen auf Evidenzübersichten, die nach Entwicklung von PICO-(Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome-)Fragen, systematischer Recherche in Literaturdatenbanken sowie Selektion und Bewertung der gefundenen Literatur angefertigt wurden. In den interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppen wurden auf dieser Grundlage Vorschläge für Empfehlungen und Statements erarbeitet, die im Rahmen von strukturierten Konsensusverfahren modifiziert und graduiert wurden.
Empfehlungen: Der Teil 1 dieser Kurzversion der Leitlinie zeigt Empfehlungen zur Früherkennung, Diagnostik und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms: Der Stellenwert des Mammografie-Screenings wird in der aktualisierten Leitlinienversion bestätigt und bildet damit die Grundlage der Früherkennung. Neben den konventionellen Methoden der Karzinomdiagnostik wird die Computertomografie (CT) zum Staging bei höherem Rückfallrisiko empfohlen. Die Nachsorgekonzepte beinhalten Untersuchungsintervalle für die körperliche Untersuchung, Ultraschall und Mammografie, während weiterführende Gerätediagnostik und Tumormarkerbestimmungen bei der metastasierten Erkrankung Anwendung finden.
Purpose: The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer.
Methods: The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure.
Recommendations: Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.
Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most frequent female cancer and preferentially metastasizes to bone. The transcription factor TGFB-induced factor homeobox 1 (TGIF) is involved in bone metabolism. However, it is not yet known whether TGIF is associated with BC bone metastasis or patient outcome and thus of potential interest. Methods: TGIF expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry in 1197 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples from BC patients treated in the GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study with two adjuvant dose-dense schedules of chemotherapy with or without bisphosphonate ibandronate. TGIF expression was categorized into negative/low and moderate/strong staining. Endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and time to primary bone metastasis as first site of relapse (TTPBM). Results: We found associations of higher TGIF protein expression with smaller tumor size (p= 0.015), well differentiated phenotype (p< 0.001) and estrogen receptor (ER)-positive BC (p< 0.001). Patients with higher TGIF expression levels showed a significantly longer disease-free (DFS: HR 0.75 [95%CI 0.59–0.95], log-rank p=0.019) and overall survival (OS: HR 0.69 [95%CI 0.50–0.94], log-rank p= 0.019), but no association with TTPBM (HR 0.77 [95%CI 0.51–1.16]; p= 0.213). Univariate analysis in molecular subgroups emphasized that elevated TGIF expression was prognostic for both DFS and OS in ER-positive BC patients (DFS: HR 0.68 [95%CI 0.51–0.91]; log-rank p= 0.009, interaction p= 0.130; OS: HR 0.60 [95%CI 0.41–0.88], log-rank p= 0.008, interaction p= 0.107) and in the HER2-negative subgroup (DFS:HR 0.67 [95%CI 0.50–0.88], log-rank p= 0.004, interaction p= 0.034; OS: HR 0.57 [95%CI 0.40–0.81], log-rank p= 0.002, interaction p= 0.015). Conclusions: Our results suggest that moderate to high TGIF expression is a common feature of breast cancer cells and that this is not associated with bone metastases as first site of relapse. However, a reduced expression is linked to tumor progression, especially in HER2-negative breast cancer.
Following publication of the original article, the authors noticed an incorrect affiliation for Christine Stürken and Udo Schumacher. The correct affiliations are as follows: Christine Stürken: Institute of Anatomy and Experimental Morphology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. Udo Schumacher: Institute of Anatomy and Experimental Morphology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. The affiliations have been correctly published in this correction and the original article has been updated.
Simple Summary: The incidence of brain metastases from breast cancer is increasing and the treatment is still a major challenge. Several scores have been developed in order to estimate the prognosis of patients with brain metastases by objective criteria. Here, we validated all three published graded-prognostic-assessment (GPA)-scores in a subcohort of 882 breast cancer patients with brain metastases in the Brain Metastases in the German Breast Cancer (BMBC) registry. Although all three available GPA-scores were associated with OS, they all show limitations mainly in predicting short-term (below 3 months) survival but also in long-term (above 12 months) survival. We discuss the test performances of all scores in our work and provide evidence how physicians should use them as a tool to select patients for different treatment options.
Abstract: Several scores have been developed in order to estimate the prognosis of patients with brain metastases (BM) by objective criteria. The aim of this analysis was to validate all three published graded-prognostic-assessment (GPA)-scores in a subcohort of 882 breast cancer (BC) patients with BM in the Brain Metastases in the German Breast Cancer (BMBC) registry. The median age at diagnosis of BM was 57 years. All in all, 22.3% of patients (n = 197) had triple-negative, 33.4% (n = 295) luminal A like, 25.1% (n = 221) luminal B/HER2-enriched like and 19.2% (n = 169) HER2 positive like BC. Age ≥60 years, evidence of extracranial metastases (ECM), higher number of BM, triple-negative subtype and low Karnofsky-Performance-Status (KPS) were all associated with worse overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis (p < 0.001 each). All three GPA-scores were associated with OS. The breast-GPA showed the highest probability of classifying patients with survival above 12 months in the best prognostic group (specificity 68.7% compared with 48.1% for the updated breast-GPA and 21.8% for the original GPA). Sensitivities for predicting 3 months survival were very low for all scores. In this analysis, all GPA-scores showed only moderate diagnostic accuracy in predicting the OS of BC patients with BM.
Background: The integration of the non-cross-resistant chemotherapeutic agents capecitabine and vinorelbine into an intensified dose-dense sequential anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimen in high-risk early breast cancer (EBC) could improve efficacy, but this combination was not examined in this context so far. Methods: Patients with stage II/IIIA EBC (four or more positive lymph nodes) received post-operative intensified dose-dense sequential epirubicin (150mg/m2 every 2 weeks) and paclitaxel (225mg/m2 every 2 weeks) with filgrastim and darbepoetin alfa, followed by capecitabine alone (dose levels 1 and 3) or with vinorelbine (dose levels 2 and 4). Capecitabine was given on days 1-14 every 21 days at 1000 or 1250 mg/m2 twice daily (dose levels 1/2 and 3/4, respectively). Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 was given on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day course (dose levels 2 and 4). Results: Fifty-one patients were treated. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at dose level 1. At dose level 2 (capecitabine and vinorelbine), five of 10 patients experienced DLTs. Therefore evaluation of vinorelbine was abandoned and dose level 3 (capecitabine monotherapy) was expanded. Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea were dose limiting with capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily. At 35.2 months' median follow-up, the estimated 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 82% and 91%, respectively. Administration of capecitabine monotherapy after sequential dose-dense epirubicin and paclitaxel is feasible in node-positive EBC, while the combination of capecitabine and vinorelbine as used here caused more DLTs. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38983527.
BACKGROUND: The AGO-ETC trial compared 5-year relapse-free survival of intense dose-dense (IDD) sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin (E), paclitaxel (T), and cyclophosphamide (C) (IDD-ETC) every 2 weeks vs conventional scheduled epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (EC→T) (every 3 weeks) as adjuvant treatment in high-risk breast cancer patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of epoetin alfa in a second randomization of the intense dose-dense arm.
METHODS: One thousand two hundred eighty-four patients were enrolled; 658 patients were randomly assigned to the IDD-ETC treatment group. Within the IDD-ETC group, 324 patients were further randomly assigned to the epoetin alfa group, and 319 were randomly assigned to the non-erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) control group. Primary efficacy endpoints included change in hemoglobin level from baseline to Cycle 9 and the percentage of subjects requiring red blood cell transfusion. Relapse-free survival, overall survival, and intramammary relapse were secondary endpoints estimated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Except for the primary hypothesis, all statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS: Epoetin alfa avoided the decrease in hemoglobin level (no decrease in the epoetin alfa group vs -2.20g/dL change for the control group; P < .001) and statistically significantly reduced the percentage of subjects requiring red blood cell transfusion (12.8% vs 28.1%; P < .0001). The incidence of thrombotic events was 7% in the epoetin alfa arm vs 3% in the control arm. After a median follow-up of 62 months, epoetin alfa treatment did not affect overall survival, relapse-free survival, or intramammary relapse.
CONCLUSIONS: Epoetin alfa resulted in improved hemoglobin levels and decreased transfusions without an impact on relapse-free or overall survival. However, epoetin alfa had an adverse effect, resulting in increased thrombosis.
Bestimmung des klinischen Nutzens systemischer adjuvanter Therapien beim frühen Mammakarzinom
(2017)
Die onkologische Therapie befindet sich im Umbruch. Hohe Erwartungen sind mit einer Reihe innovativer zielgerichteter Medikamente verknüpft, die sich derzeit in der klinischen Entwicklung befinden. Vor diesem Hintergrund erfahren Diskussionen um die Begriffe klinischer Nutzen oder klinische Relevanz neue Aktualität. Dies gilt auch für die Weiterentwicklungen der adjuvanten systemischen Therapie des frühen Mammakarzinoms. In Anbetracht der kurativen Zielsetzung erfolgt die Beurteilung des klinischen Nutzens einer adjuvanten Therapie maßgeblich anhand von Wirksamkeitsendpunkten. Der Fokus liegt hierbei auf Verbesserungen des krankheitsfreien Überlebens und des Rezidivrisikos. Eine Aussage zum Gesamtüberleben ist aufgrund der heute erreichten niedrigen Mortalitätsraten erst nach sehr langen Beobachtungszeiten möglich. Folgerichtig sollte neuen Medikamenten für die adjuvante Therapie ein klinischer Nutzen zugesprochen werden, wenn sie eine weitere Reduktion des Rezidivrisikos über den heutigen hohen Standard hinaus ermöglichen. Die Evidenz für etablierte adjuvante Therapiestandards beim frühen Mammakarzinom kann als objektiver Maßstab zum Vergleich herangezogen werden. Am Beispiel der adjuvanten endokrinen Therapie, der adjuvanten Polychemotherapie und der adjuvanten Anti-HER2-Therapie werden in diesem Übersichtsartikel die Anforderungen für den klinischen Nutzen neuer adjuvanter Therapien beim frühen Mammakarzinom abgeleitet.
Oncologic therapy is currently undergoing significant changes. A number of innovative targeted medications currently in clinical development have raised high expectations. With that in mind, discussions about terms such as "clinical benefit" and "clinical relevance" are highly topical. This also applies to further developments in the field of adjuvant systemic therapies for early-stage breast cancer. As the treatment aim is curative, assessment of the clinical benefit of adjuvant therapies must be largely based on efficacy outcomes. The focus must be on improving disease-free survival rates and lowering the risk of recurrence. Because of the current low mortality rates, statements about overall survival rates are only possible after very long observation periods. Consequently, new drugs in adjuvant therapies should be considered as offering a clinical benefit, if they reduce the risk of recurrence below current low levels of risk. The evidence for established adjuvant therapy standards in early-stage breast cancer can be used as objective criteria for comparison. This review article considers the requirements for clinical benefit of new adjuvant therapies for early breast cancer, based on examples from adjuvant endocrine therapy, adjuvant polychemotherapy and adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy.
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for breast cancer improves relapse-free survival (BCRFS) and overall survival. Differences in terms of efficacy and toxicity could partly be explained by the significant interpatient variability in pharmacokinetics which cannot be captured by dosing according to body surface area. Consequently, tailored dosing was prospectively evaluated in the PANTHER trial.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: PANTHER is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial which compared tailored, dose-dense (DD) epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (E/C) and tailored docetaxel (D) (tDD) with standard interval 5-fluorouracil/E/C and D. The primary end point was BCRFS and the primary efficacy analysis has been previously published. In this secondary analysis, we aimed to retrospectively explore the concept of dose tailoring. Our two hypotheses were that BCRFS would not vary depending on the cumulative administered epirubicin dose; and that dose tailoring would lead to appropriate dosing and improved outcomes for obese patients, who are known to have worse prognosis and increased toxicity after DD ACT.
RESULTS: Patients treated with tDD had similar BCRFS regardless of the cumulative epirubicin dose (P = 0.495), while obese patients in this group [body mass index (BMI) ≥30] had improved BCRFS compared with nonobese ones (BMI <30) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.89, P = 0.02]. Moreover, tDD was associated with improved BCRFS compared with standard treatment only in obese patients (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.26-0.90, P = 0.022) but not in nonobese ones (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.04, P = 0.089). The differences were not formally statistically significant (P for interaction 0.175). There were no differences in terms of toxicity across the epirubicin dose levels or the BMI groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Dose tailoring is a feasible strategy that can potentially improve outcomes in obese patients without increasing toxicity and should be pursued in further clinical studies.