Refine
Document Type
- Article (8)
Language
- English (8) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- Mammakarzinom (5)
- breast cancer (5)
- Behandlung (4)
- CDK4/6 (3)
- Metastasen (3)
- PD1/PDL1 (3)
- Studien (3)
- treatment (3)
- Prävention (2)
- Risiko (2)
Institute
- Medizin (8) (remove)
New therapeutic developments aimed at treating women with advanced breast cancer currently focus both on identifying patients eligible for targeted therapeutic concepts and on the continuing development of immune therapies. The data on CDK4/6 inhibitors are now complete and consistent in this class of substances (palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib). Further pathways under investigation are PI3K and AKT signalling pathways along with diverse approaches to their inhibition. Initial study results were also presented recently on both mechanisms of action. Insights into the PARP inhibitors, moreover, are increasing; studies in this respect are also examining in which population they can be used most effectively. This review offers a summary of the recent studies and an outline of the latest developments.
In primary early breast cancer, the aim of treatment planning is to obtain an increasingly better understanding of the disease. The identification of patients with an excellent prognosis could help this group avoid unnecessary treatments. Furthermore, the planning of treatment is becoming increasingly patient-focussed. There is a growing understanding of those patients who benefit particularly from chemotherapy, as well as of those who could benefit from immunotherapy. Studies conducted on immunotherapies will be published shortly. Smaller individual studies offer an initial insight into the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD1/PDL1 therapies). Not least, one of the largest breast cancer studies of all times has recently come to an end. The use of a multigene test has shown that it is sufficient to identify patients with such a good prognosis that chemotherapy is unnecessary. This review article is intended to summarise the current studies and give an outlook on current developments.
The treatment of metastatic breast cancer has become more complicated due to increasing numbers of new therapies which need to be tested. Therapies are now being developed to treat special clinical or molecular subgroups. Even though intrinsic molecular subtypes play a major role, more and more new therapies for subgroups and histological subtypes are being developed, such as the use of PARP inhibitors to treat patients with BRCA mutations (breast and ovarian cancer). Supportive therapies are also evolving, allowing problems such as alopecia or nausea and vomiting to be treated more effectively. Treatment-related side effects have a direct impact on the prognosis of patients with metastatic breast cancer, and supportive therapy can improve compliance. Digital tools could be useful to establish better patient management systems. This overview provides an insight into recent trials and how the findings could affect routine treatment. Current aspects of breast cancer prevention are also presented.
This summary provides an overview of how new therapies or new aspects of established therapies relate to the latest findings. Neoadjuvant therapy, local therapy, new aspects of systemic therapy, and prognostic and predictive factors are presented. In the neoadjuvant setting, the association between pathological complete response (pCR) and prognosis is still of interest as is the identification of new molecular predictors for new therapies such as CDK4/6 inhibitors. As regards surgical treatment, the target is still to reduce the aggressiveness of surgery. To achieve this, a better understanding particularly of ductal carcinoma in situ is required. With regard to systemic therapy, more data on the best combinations and therapy sequences for existing therapies is available. Finally, the use of prognostic and predictive factors may help to avoid overtreatment and ensure that patients only receive therapies which have been shown to be effective for their specific condition and have fewer side effects.
This study presents comprehensive real-world data on the use of anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Specifically, it describes therapy patterns with trastuzumab (H), pertuzumab + trastuzumab (PH), lapatinib (L), and trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). The PRAEGNANT study is a real-time, real-world registry for MBC patients. All therapy lines are documented. This analysis describes the utilization of anti-HER2 therapies as well as therapy sequences. Among 1936 patients in PRAEGNANT, 451 were HER2-positive (23.3%). In the analysis set (417 patients), 53% of whom were included in PRAEGNANT in the first-line setting, 241 were treated with H, 237 with PH, 85 with L, and 125 with T-DM1 during the course of their therapies. The sequence PH → T-DM1 was administered in 51 patients. Higher Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scores, negative hormone receptor status, and visceral or brain metastases were associated with more frequent use of this therapy sequence. Most patients received T-DM1 after treatment with pertuzumab. Both novel therapies (PH and T-DM1) are utilized in a high proportion of HER2-positive breast cancer patients. As most patients receive T-DM1 after PH, real-world data may help to clarify whether the efficacy of this sequence is similar to that in the approval study.
Background: Identification of families at risk for ovarian cancer offers the opportunity to consider prophylactic surgery thus reducing ovarian cancer mortality. So far, identification of potentially affected families in Germany was solely performed via family history and numbers of affected family members with breast or ovarian cancer. However, neither the prevalence of deleterious variants in BRCA1/2 in ovarian cancer in Germany nor the reliability of family history as trigger for genetic counselling has ever been evaluated.
Methods: Prospective counseling and germline testing of consecutive patients with primary diagnosis or with platinum-sensitive relapse of an invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Testing included 25 candidate and established risk genes. Among these 25 genes, 16 genes (ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NBN, PMS2, PTEN, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D, STK11, TP53) were defined as established cancer risk genes. A positive family history was defined as at least one relative with breast cancer or ovarian cancer or breast cancer in personal history.
Results: In total, we analyzed 523 patients: 281 patients with primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer and 242 patients with relapsed disease. Median age at primary diagnosis was 58 years (range 16–93) and 406 patients (77.6%) had a high-grade serous ovarian cancer. In total, 27.9% of the patients showed at least one deleterious variant in all 25 investigated genes and 26.4% in the defined 16 risk genes. Deleterious variants were most prevalent in the BRCA1 (15.5%), BRCA2 (5.5%), RAD51C (2.5%) and PALB2 (1.1%) genes. The prevalence of deleterious variants did not differ significantly between patients at primary diagnosis and relapse. The prevalence of deleterious variants in BRCA1/2 (and in all 16 risk genes) in patients <60 years was 30.2% (33.2%) versus 10.6% (18.9%) in patients ≥60 years. Family history was positive in 43% of all patients. Patients with a positive family history had a prevalence of deleterious variants of 31.6% (36.0%) versus 11.4% (17.6%) and histologic subtype of high grade serous ovarian cancer versus other showed a prevalence of deleterious variants of 23.2% (29.1%) and 10.2% (14.8%), respectively. Testing only for BRCA1/2 would miss in our series more than 5% of the patients with a deleterious variant in established risk genes.
Conclusions: 26.4% of all patients harbor at least one deleterious variant in established risk genes. The threshold of 10% mutation rate which is accepted for reimbursement by health care providers in Germany was observed in all subgroups analyzed and neither age at primary diagnosis nor histo-type or family history sufficiently enough could identify a subgroup not eligible for genetic counselling and testing. Genetic testing should therefore be offered to every patient with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and limiting testing to BRCA1/2 seems to be not sufficient.
Objective: To assess the current medical practice in Europe regarding prenatal dexamethasone (Pdex) treatment of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency.
Design and methods: A questionnaire was designed and distributed, including 17 questions collecting quantitative and qualitative data. Thirty-six medical centres from 14 European countries responded and 30 out of 36 centres were reference centres of the European Reference Network on Rare Endocrine Conditions, EndoERN.
Results: Pdex treatment is currently provided by 36% of the surveyed centres. The treatment is initiated by different specialties, that is paediatricians, endocrinologists, gynaecologists or geneticists. Regarding the starting point of Pdex, 23% stated to initiate therapy at 4–5 weeks postconception (wpc), 31% at 6 wpc and 46 % as early as pregnancy is confirmed and before 7 wpc at the latest. A dose of 20 µg/kg/day is used. Dose distribution among the centres varies from once to thrice daily. Prenatal diagnostics for treated cases are conducted in 72% of the responding centres. Cases treated per country and year vary between 0.5 and 8.25. Registries for long-term follow-up are only available at 46% of the centres that are using Pdex treatment. National registries are only available in Sweden and France.
Conclusions: This study reveals a high international variability and discrepancy in the use of Pdex treatment across Europe. It highlights the importance of a European cooperation initiative for a joint international prospective trial to establish evidence-based guidelines on prenatal diagnostics, treatment and follow-up of pregnancies at risk for CAH.
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.