Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (24)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (25)
Keywords
- breast cancer (6)
- Breast cancer (3)
- brain metastases (3)
- Diagnostik (2)
- Früherkennung (2)
- Mammakarzinom (2)
- Nachsorge (2)
- Richtlinie (2)
- diagnosis (2)
- follow‑up (2)
Institute
- Medizin (25)
- Georg-Speyer-Haus (2)
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: 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.
CDK4/6 inhibitors have an established role in the treatment of hormone receptor positive HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. All studies conducted in metastatic breast cancer showed a benefit in delaying progression when added to standard endocrine therapy, regardless of therapy line, pretreatment, menopausal status, site of metastasis, CDK4/6 inhibitor used and associated endocrine therapy. A benefit in overall survival has also been demonstrated. In early breast cancer, only the MonarchE study has shown an improved invasive disease-free survival with abemaciclib taken for 2 years, whereas the Penelope-B did not meet the primary endpoint and the PALLAS study was terminated early for futility. Studies conducted in the neoadjuvant setting might help to explain the discordant results.
Characteristics and clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with asymptomatic brain metastases
(2020)
Simple Summary: The prognosis for patients with breast cancer that has spread to the brain is poor, and survival for these women hasn’t improved over the last few decades. We do not currently test for asymptomatic brain metastases in breast cancer patients, although this does happen in some other types of cancer. In this study we wanted to find out more about breast cancer that has spread to the brain and in particular to see whether there might be any advantage to spotting brain metastases before the development of neurological symptoms. Overall, our results suggest that women could be better off if their brain metastases are diagnosed before they begin to cause symptoms. We now need to carry out a clinical trial to see what happens if we screen high-risk breast cancer patients for brain metastases. This will verify whether doing so could increase survival, symptom control or quality of life.
Abstract: Background: Brain metastases (BM) have become a major challenge in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Methods: The aim of this analysis was to characterize patients with asymptomatic BM (n = 580) in the overall cohort of 2589 patients with BM from our Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer Network Germany (BMBC) registry. Results: Compared to symptomatic patients, asymptomatic patients were slightly younger at diagnosis (median age: 55.5 vs. 57.0 years, p = 0.01), had a better performance status at diagnosis (Karnofsky index 80–100%: 68.4% vs. 57%, p < 0.001), a lower number of BM (>1 BM: 56% vs. 70%, p = 0.027), and a slightly smaller diameter of BM (median: 1.5 vs. 2.2 cm, p < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients were more likely to have extracranial metastases (86.7% vs. 81.5%, p = 0.003) but were less likely to have leptomeningeal metastasis (6.3% vs. 10.9%, p < 0.001). Asymptomatic patients underwent less intensive BM therapy but had a longer median overall survival (statistically significant for a cohort of HER2-positive patients) compared to symptomatic patients (10.4 vs. 6.9 months, p < 0.001). Conclusions: These analyses show a trend that asymptomatic patients have less severe metastatic brain disease and despite less intensive local BM therapy still have a better outcome (statistically significant for a cohort of HER2-positive patients) than patients who present with symptomatic BM, although a lead time bias of the earlier diagnosis cannot be ruled out. Our analysis is of clinical relevance in the context of potential trials examining the benefit of early detection and treatment of BM.
Background: Remodeling of extracellular matrix through collagen degradation is a crucial step in the metastatic cascade. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential clinical relevance of the serum collagen degradation markers (CDM) C3M and C4M during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Methods: Patients from the GeparQuinto phase 3 trial with untreated HER2-positive operable or locally advanced breast cancer were enrolled between 7 November 2007, and 9 July 2010, and randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant treatment with EC/docetaxel with either trastuzumab or lapatinib. Blood samples were collected at baseline, after four cycles of chemotherapy and at surgery. Cutoff values were determined using validated cutoff finder software (C3M: Low ≤9.00 ng/mL, high >9.00 ng/mL, C4M: Low ≤40.91 ng/mL, high >40.91 ng/mL).
Results: 157 patients were included in this analysis. At baseline, 11.7% and 14.8% of patients had high C3M and C4M serum levels, respectively. No correlation was observed between CDM and classical clinical-pathological factors. Patients with high levels of CDM were significantly more likely to achieve a pathological complete response (pCR, defined as ypT0 ypN0) than patients with low levels (C3M: 66.7% vs. 25.7%, p = 0.002; C4M: 52.7% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.031). Median levels of both markers were lower at the time of surgery than at baseline. In the multivariate analysis including clinical-pathological factors and C3M levels at baseline and changes in C3M levels between baseline and after four cycles of therapy, only C3M levels at baseline (p = 0.035, OR 4.469, 95%-CI 1.115–17.919) independently predicted pCR. In a similar model including clinical-pathological factors and C4M, only C4M levels at baseline (p = 0.028, OR 6.203, 95%-CI 1.220–31.546) and tumor size (p = 0.035, OR 4.900, 95%-CI 1.122–21.393) were independent predictors of pCR. High C3M levels at baseline did not correlate with survival in the entire cohort but were associated with worse disease-free survival (DFS; p = 0.029, 5-year DFS 40.0% vs. 74.9%) and overall survival (OS; p = 0.020, 5-year OS 60.0% vs. 88.3%) in the subgroup of patients randomized to lapatinib. In the trastuzumab arm, C3M did not correlate with survival. In the entire patient cohort, high levels of C4M at baseline were significantly associated with shorter DFS (p = 0.001, 5-year DFS 53.1% vs. 81.6%) but not with OS. When treatment arms were considered separately, the association with DFS was still significant (p = 0.014, 5-year DFS 44.4% vs. 77.0% in the lapatinib arm; p = 0.023, 5-year DFS 62.5% vs. 86.2% in the trastuzumab arm).
Conclusions: Collagen degradation markers are associated with response to neoadjuvant therapy and seem to play a role in breast cancer.
Background: Two large clinical trials have shown a reduced rate of breast cancer development in high-risk women in the initial 5 years of follow-up after use of aromatase inhibitors (MAP.3 and International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II [IBIS-II]). Here, we report blinded long-term follow-up results for the IBIS-II trial, which compared anastrozole with placebo, with the objective of determining the efficacy of anastrozole for preventing breast cancer (both invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ) in the post-treatment period.
Methods: IBIS-II is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Postmenopausal women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were recruited and were randomly assigned (1:1) to either anastrozole (1 mg per day, oral) or matching placebo daily for 5 years. After treatment completion, women were followed on a yearly basis to collect data on breast cancer incidence, death, other cancers, and major adverse events (cardiovascular events and fractures). The primary outcome was all breast cancer.
Findings: 3864 women were recruited between Feb 2, 2003, and Jan 31, 2012. 1920 women were randomly assigned to 5 years anastrozole and 1944 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 131 months (IQR 105–156), a 49% reduction in breast cancer was observed for anastrozole (85 vs 165 cases, hazard ratio [HR] 0·51, 95% CI 0·39–0·66, p<0·0001). The reduction was larger in the first 5 years (35 vs 89, 0·39, 0·27–0·58, p<0·0001), but still significant after 5 years (50 vs 76 new cases, 0·64, 0·45–0·91, p=0·014), and not significantly different from the first 5 years (p=0·087). Invasive oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer was reduced by 54% (HR 0·46, 95% CI 0·33–0·65, p<0·0001), with a continued significant effect in the period after treatment. A 59% reduction in ductal carcinoma in situ was observed (0·41, 0·22–0·79, p=0·0081), especially in participants known to be oestrogen receptor-positive (0·22, 0·78–0·65, p<0·0001). No significant difference in deaths was observed overall (69 vs 70, HR 0·96, 95% CI 0·69–1·34, p=0·82) or for breast cancer (two anastrozole vs three placebo). A significant decrease in non-breast cancers was observed for anastrozole (147 vs 200, odds ratio 0·72, 95% CI 0·57–0·91, p=0·0042), owing primarily to non-melanoma skin cancer. No excess of fractures or cardiovascular disease was observed.
Interpretation: This analysis has identified a significant continuing reduction in breast cancer with anastrozole in the post-treatment follow-up period, with no evidence of new late side-effects. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on breast cancer mortality.
Funding: Cancer Research UK, the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Sanofi Aventis, and AstraZeneca.
Background: The incidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases in breast cancer patients is rising and has become a major clinical challenge. Only few data are published concerning risk factors for the development of CNS metastases as a first site of metastatic disease in breast cancer patients. Moreover, the incidence of CNS metastases after modern neoadjuvant treatment is not clear.
Methods: We analyzed clinical factors associated with the occurrence of CNS metastases as the first site of metastatic disease in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment in the trials GeparQuinto and GeparSixto (n = 3160) where patients received targeted treatment in addition to taxane and anthracycline-based chemotherapy.
Results: After a median follow-up of 61 months, 108 (3%) of a total of 3160 patients developed CNS metastases as the first site of recurrence and 411 (13%) patients had metastatic disease outside the CNS. Thirty-six patients (1%) developed both CNS metastases and other distant metastases as the first site of metastatic disease. Regarding subtypes of the primary tumor, 1% of luminal A-like (11/954), 2% of luminal B-like (7/381), 4% of HER2-positive (34/809), and 6% of triple-negative patients (56/1008) developed CNS metastases as the first site of metastatic disease.
In multivariate analysis, risk factors for the development of CNS metastases were larger tumor size (cT3–4; HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08–2.46, p = 0.021), node-positive disease (HR 2.57, 95% CI 1.64–4.04, p < 0.001), no pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.32–3.97, p = 0.003), and HER2-positive (HR 3.80, 95% CI 1.89–7.64, p < 0.001) or triple-negative subtype (HR 6.38, 95% CI 3.28–12.44, p < 0.001).
Conclusions: Especially patients with HER2-positive and triple-negative tumors are at risk of developing CNS metastases despite effective systemic treatment. A better understanding of the underlying mechanisms is required in order to develop potential preventive strategies.
Background: There is no international consensus up to which age women with a diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and no family history of breast or ovarian cancer should be offered genetic testing for germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (gBRCA) mutations. Here, we explored the association of age at TNBC diagnosis with the prevalence of pathogenic gBRCA mutations in this patient group.
Methods: The study comprised 802 women (median age 40 years, range 19–76) with oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 negative breast cancers, who had no relatives with breast or ovarian cancer. All women were tested for pathogenic gBRCA mutations. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the association between age at TNBC diagnosis and the presence of a pathogenic gBRCA mutation.
Results: A total of 127 women with TNBC (15.8%) were gBRCA mutation carriers (BRCA1: n = 118, 14.7%; BRCA2: n = 9, 1.1%). The mutation prevalence was 32.9% in the age group 20–29 years compared to 6.9% in the age group 60–69 years. Logistic regression analysis revealed a significant increase of mutation frequency with decreasing age at diagnosis (odds ratio 1.87 per 10 year decrease, 95%CI 1.50–2.32, p < 0.001). gBRCA mutation risk was predicted to be > 10% for women diagnosed below approximately 50 years.
Conclusions: Based on the general understanding that a heterozygous mutation probability of 10% or greater justifies gBRCA mutation screening, women with TNBC diagnosed before the age of 50 years and no familial history of breast and ovarian cancer should be tested for gBRCA mutations. In Germany, this would concern approximately 880 women with newly diagnosed TNBC per year, of whom approximately 150 are expected to be identified as carriers of a pathogenic gBRCA mutation.