Refine
Year of publication
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (19)
Keywords
- breast cancer (5)
- Diagnostik (2)
- Früherkennung (2)
- Mammakarzinom (2)
- Nachsorge (2)
- Richtlinie (2)
- adjuvant therapy (2)
- adjuvante Therapie (2)
- brain metastases (2)
- clinical benefit (2)
Institute
- Medizin (19) (remove)
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.
Cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors have shown great results in numerous clinical trials and have improved the clinical outcome for patients with hormone-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer significantly. To date, three CDK4/6 inhibitors are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib; the first two compounds are aproved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as well. In combination with endocrine therapy, all of them led to significantly improved progression-free survival compared with endocrine therapy alone. The aim of this article is to give an overview of the efficacy data and to describe the CDK4/6 inhibitor-based treatment-associated adverse events, including hematological and nonhematological adverse events. In addition, it describes the corrrect approach to patient monitoring and adverse event mangement and summarizes the current recommendations for dose reductions and dose interruptions regarding the key adverse events, such as neutropenia, diarrhea, QTc prolongation and hepatobiliary toxicity. Accurate patient monitoring and management of the side effects is crucial, as several clinical trials in early breast cancer are in progress and may lead to an additional approval in the neo-/adjuvant setting.
Background: School attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic is intensely debated.
Aim: In November 2020, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 infections and seroreactivity in 24 randomly selected school classes and connected households in Berlin, Germany.
Methods: We collected oro-nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples, examining SARS-CoV-2 infection and IgG antibodies by RT-PCR and ELISA. Household members self-swabbed. We assessed individual and institutional prevention measures. Classes with SARS-CoV-2 infection and connected households were retested after 1 week.
Results: We examined 1,119 participants, including 177 primary and 175 secondary school students, 142 staff and 625 household members. SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in eight classes, affecting each 1–2 individuals. Infection prevalence was 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2–5.0; 9/338), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.1; 2/140), and 2.3% (95% CI: 1.3–3.8; 14/611) among students, staff and household members. Six of nine infected students were asymptomatic at testing. We detected IgG antibodies in 2.0% (95%CI: 0.8–4.1; 7/347), 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2–5.0; 2/141) and 1.4% (95% CI: 0.6–2.7; 8/576). Prevalence increased with inconsistent facemask-use in school, walking to school, and case-contacts outside school. For three of nine households with infection(s), origin in school seemed possible. After 1 week, no school-related secondary infections appeared in affected classes; the attack rate in connected households was 1.1%.
Conclusion: School attendance under rigorously implemented preventive measures seems reasonable. Balancing risks and benefits of school closures need to consider possible spill-over infection into households. Deeper insight is required into the infection risks due to being a schoolchild vs attending school.
Background: School attendance during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is intensely debated. Modelling studies suggest that school closures contribute to community transmission reduction. However, data among school-attending students and staff are scarce. In November 2020, we examined SARS-CoV-2 infections and seroreactivity in 24 randomly selected school classes and connected households in Berlin, Germany.
Methods: Students and school staff were examined, oro-nasopharyngeal swabs and blood samples collected, and SARS-CoV-2 infection and IgG antibodies detected by RT-PCR and ELISA. Household members performed self-swabs. Individual and institutional infection prevention and control measures were assessed. Classes with SARS-CoV-2 infection and connected household members were re-tested after one week.
Findings: 1119 participants were examined, including 177 primary and 175 secondary school students, 142 staff, and 625 household members. Participants reported mainly cold symptoms (19·4%). SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in eight of 24 classes affecting each 1-2 individuals. Infection prevalence was 2·7% (95%CI; 1·2-5·0%; 9/338), 1·4% (0·2-5·1%; 2/140), and 2·3% (1·3-3·8%; 14/611) among students, staff and household members, respectively, including quarantined persons. Six of nine infected students were asymptomatic. Prevalence increased with inconsistent facemask use in school, way to school on foot, and case-contacts outside school. IgG antibodies were detected in 2·0% (0·8-4·1%; 7/347), 1·4% (0·2-5·0%; 2/141) and 1·4% (0·6-2·7%; 8/576), respectively. For three of nine households with infection(s) detected at cross-sectional assessment, origin in school seemed possible. After one week, no school-related, secondary infections appeared in affected classes; the attack rate in connected households was 1·1%.
Interpretation: These data suggest that school attendance under preventive measures is feasible, provided their rigorous implementation. In balancing threats and benefits of open versus closed schools during the pandemic, parents and society need to consider possible spill-overs into their households. Deeper insight is needed into the infection risks due to being a schoolchild as compared to attending school.
Introduction: Current prognostic gene expression profiles for breast cancer mainly reflect proliferation status and are most useful in ER-positive cancers. Triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) are clinically heterogeneous and prognostic markers and biology-based therapies are needed to better treat this disease.
Methods: We assembled Affymetrix gene expression data for 579 TNBC and performed unsupervised analysis to define metagenes that distinguish molecular subsets within TNBC. We used n = 394 cases for discovery and n = 185 cases for validation. Sixteen metagenes emerged that identified basal-like, apocrine and claudin-low molecular subtypes, or reflected various non-neoplastic cell populations, including immune cells, blood, adipocytes, stroma, angiogenesis and inflammation within the cancer. The expressions of these metagenes were correlated with survival and multivariate analysis was performed, including routine clinical and pathological variables.
Results: Seventy-three percent of TNBC displayed basal-like molecular subtype that correlated with high histological grade and younger age. Survival of basal-like TNBC was not different from non basal-like TNBC. High expression of immune cell metagenes was associated with good and high expression of inflammation and angiogenesis-related metagenes were associated with poor prognosis. A ratio of high B-cell and low IL-8 metagenes identified 32% of TNBC with good prognosis (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.61; P < 0.001) and was the only significant predictor in multivariate analysis including routine clinicopathological variables.
Conclusions: We describe a ratio of high B-cell presence and low IL-8 activity as a powerful new prognostic marker for TNBC. Inhibition of the IL-8 pathway also represents an attractive novel therapeutic target for this disease.
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.
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.