Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (21)
Has Fulltext
- yes (21)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21)
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 (14)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Purpose: The PELICAN trial evaluates for the first time efficacy and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus capecitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
Methods: This randomized, phase III, open-label, multicenter trial enrolled first-line MBC patients who were ineligible for endocrine or trastuzumab therapy. Cumulative adjuvant anthracyclines of 360 mg/m2 doxorubicin or equivalent were allowed. Left ventricular ejection fraction of >50 % was required. Patients received PLD 50 mg/m2 every 28 days or capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days every 21 days. The primary endpoint was time-to-disease progression (TTP).
Results: 210 patients were randomized (n = 105, PLD and n = 105, capecitabine). Adjuvant anthracyclines were given to 37 % (PLD) and 36 % (capecitabine) of patients. No significant difference was observed in TTP [HR = 1.21 (95 % confidence interval, 0.838–1.750)]. Median TTP was 6.0 months for both PLD and capecitabine. Comparing patients with or without prior anthracyclines, no significant difference in TTP was observed in the PLD arm (log-rank P = 0.64). For PLD versus capecitabine, respectively, overall survival (median, 23.3 months vs. 26.8 months) and time-to-treatment failure (median, 4.6 months vs. 3.7 months) were not statistically significantly different. Compared to PLD, patients on capecitabine experienced more serious adverse events (P = 0.015) and more cardiac events among patients who had prior anthracycline exposure (18 vs. 8 %; P = 0.31).
Conclusion: Both PLD and capecitabine are effective first-line agents for MBC.
Heterogenous subtypes of breast cancer need to be analyzed separately. Pooling of datasets can provide reasonable sample sizes but dataset bias is an important concern. We assembled a combined dataset of 579 Affymetrix microarrays from triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) series GSE31519. We developed a method for selecting comparable datasets and to control for the amount of dataset bias of individual probesets.