Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) – Part 1 with Recommendations for the Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy of Breast Cancer

Abstract

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.

Key words

breast cancer - guideline - screening - diagnosis - follow-up

• References/Literatur

• 1 Albert US, Altland H, Duda V. Stufe-3-Leitlinie Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland. München: Zuckschwerdt; 2008
• 2 Duke Evidence Synthesis Group. Systematic Review of Cancer Screening Literature for Updating American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines. Guidelines Development Group. Durham, NC: Duke Clinical Research Institute; 2014
• 3 WHO. WHO position paper on mammography screening. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014
• 4 Broeders M, Moss S, Nyström L. et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen 2012; 19 (Suppl. 01) 14-25
• 5 Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1998-2005
• 6 Helvie MA, Chang JT, Hendrick RE. et al. Reduction in late-stage breast cancer incidence in the mammography era: Implications for overdiagnosis of invasive cancer. Cancer 2014; 120: 2649-2656
• 7 European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). Evidence report update (2016). Online: http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/recommendations/list/3
• 8 Siu AL. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164: 279-296
• 9 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Breast Cancer Screening. IARC Handbook of Cancer Prevention. 2016
• 10 Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D. et al. Body Fatness and Cancer – Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 794-798
• 11 Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM. et al. Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review. JAMA 2015; 314: 1615-1634
• 12 Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA 2014; 311: 1327-1335
• 13 Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A. et al. Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164: 244-255
• 14 Moss SM, Wale C, Smith R. et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 yearsʼ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1123-1132
• 15 Houssami N, Abraham LA, Kerlikowske K. et al. Risk factors for second screen-detected or interval breast cancers in women with a personal history of breast cancer participating in mammography screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013; 22: 946-961
• 16 Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Tosteson AN. et al. Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 673-681
• 17 Brentnall AR, Harkness EF, Astley SM. et al. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Breast Cancer Res 2015; 17: 147
• 18 Hodgson R, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Harvey SC. et al. Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast 2016; 27: 52-61
• 19 Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP. et al. Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164: 268-278
• 20 Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T. et al. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387: 341-348
• 21 Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G. et al. Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 1882-1888
• 22 Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB. et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 2014; 271: 655-663
• 23 Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A. et al. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol 2016; 26: 184-190
• 24 Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S. et al. Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast 2014; 23: 76-80
• 25 Kast K, Rhiem K, Wappenschmidt B. et al. Prevalence of BRCA1/2 germline mutations in 21 401 families with breast and ovarian cancer. J Med Genet 2016; 53: 465-471
• 26 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Familial Breast Cancer: classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer (2015). Online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg164
• 27 Moyer VA. Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2014; 160: 271-281
• 28 Légaré F, Stacey D, Turcotte S. et al. Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (09) CD006732
• 29 Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K. et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (01) CD001431
• 30 Stacey D, Samant R, Bennett C. Decision making in oncology: a review of patient decision aids to support patient participation. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 293-304
• 31 Kopke S, Gerlach A. [Informed decisions]. Pflege Z 2012; 65: 220-223
• 32 Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A. Evidenzbasierte Patienteninformation: Wünsche der Betroffenen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2009; 106: A2554-A2556
• 33 Lühnen J, Albrecht M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A. Leitlinie evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsinformation. Hamburg: 2017 Online: http://www.leitlinie-gesundheitsinformation.de/
• 34 Audeh MW. Novel treatment strategies in triple-negative breast cancer: specific role of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibition. Pharmgenomics Pers Med 2014; 7: 307-316
• 35 Byrski T, Huzarski T, Dent R. et al. Pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant cisplatin in BRCA1-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 147: 401-405
• 36 Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T. et al. Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 375-379
• 37 Liu M, Mo QG, Wei CY. et al. Platinum-based chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Oncol Lett 2013; 5: 983-991
• 38 Telli M. Optimizing chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: the role of platinum. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2014; e37-e42
• 39 Turner NC, Tutt AN. Platinum chemotherapy for BRCA1-related breast cancer: do we need more evidence?. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14: 115
• 40 Li X, You R, Wang X. et al. Effectiveness of Prophylactic Surgeries in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 3971-3981
• 41 De Felice F, Marchetti C, Musella A. et al. Bilateral risk-reduction mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22: 2876-2880
• 42 Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF. et al. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA 2010; 304: 967-975
• 43 Evans DG, Ingham SL, Baildam A. et al. Contralateral mastectomy improves survival in women with BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 140: 135-142
• 44 Lindor NM, Goldgar DE, Tavtigian SV. et al. BRCA1/2 sequence variants of uncertain significance: a primer for providers to assist in discussions and in medical management. Oncologist 2013; 18: 518-524
• 45 Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Menke-Pluijmers MB, Jager A. et al. Substantial breast cancer risk reduction and potential survival benefit after bilateral mastectomy when compared with surveillance in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective analysis. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2029-2035
• 46 Lostumbo L, Carbine NE, Wallace J. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (11) CD002748
• 47 Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL. et al. Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 159-164
• 48 Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT. et al. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1055-1062
• 49 Evans DG, Clayton R, Donnai P. et al. Risk-reducing surgery for ovarian cancer: outcomes in 300 surgeries suggest a low peritoneal primary risk. Eur J Hum Genet 2009; 17: 1381-1385
• 50 Kauff ND, Domchek SM, Friebel TM. et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy for the prevention of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast and gynecologic cancer: a multicenter, prospective study. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1331-1337
• 51 Kotsopoulos J, Huzarski T, Gronwald J. et al. Bilateral oophorectomy and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109: pii:djw177 doi:10.1093/jnci/djw177
• 52 Fakkert IE, Mourits MJ, Jansen L. et al. Breast Cancer Incidence After Risk-Reducing Salpingo-Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2012; 5: 1291-1297
• 53 Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P. et al. Contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2328-2335
• 54 Graeser MK, Engel C, Rhiem K. et al. Contralateral breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5887-5892
• 55 Rhiem K, Engel C, Graeser M. et al. The risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1/2 negative high risk families as compared to patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14: R156
• 56 Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM. et al. Improved overall survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: 668-677
• 57 van den Broek AJ, van ʼt Veer LJ, Hooning MJ. et al. Impact of Age at Primary Breast Cancer on Contralateral Breast Cancer Risk in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 409-418
• 58 Marchetti C, De Felice F, Palaia I. et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: a meta-analysis on impact on ovarian cancer risk and all cause mortality in BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 mutation carriers. BMC Womens Health 2014; 14: 150
• 59 Metcalfe K, Lynch HT, Foulkes WD. et al. Effect of Oophorectomy on Survival After Breast Cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1: 306-313
• 60 Plon SE, Eccles DM, Easton D. et al. Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat 2008; 29: 1282-1291
• 61 Boughey JC, Hoskin TL, Degnim AC. et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a survival advantage in high-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17: 2702-2709
• 62 Fayanju OM, Stoll CR, Fowler S. et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after unilateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2014; 260: 1000-1010
• 63 Speroff L. The meaning of mammographic breast density in users of postmenopausal hormone therapy. Maturitas 2002; 41: 171-175
• 64 Morrow M, Chatterton jr. RT, Rademaker AW. et al. A prospective study of variability in mammographic density during the menstrual cycle. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 121: 565-574
• 65 Scaranelo AM, Carrillo MC, Fleming R. et al. Pilot study of quantitative analysis of background enhancement on breast MR images: association with menstrual cycle and mammographic breast density. Radiology 2013; 267: 692-700
• 66 Chiarelli AM, Prummel MV, Muradali D. et al. Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 154: 377-387
• 67 Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M. et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009; 9: 335
• 68 New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG). Management of Early Breast Cancer – Evidence-based Best Practice Guideline. New Zealand Guidelines Group (2009). Online: https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/mgmt-of-early-breast-cancer-aug09.pdf last access: 01.09.2016
• 69 Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB. et al. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016; 108: pii:djv367 doi:10.1093/jnci/djv367
• 70 Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM. et al. Sydney Breast Imaging Accuracy Study: Comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 935-940
• 71 Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165-175
• 72 Müller-Schimpfle M, Graf O, Madjar H. et al. Diskussionspapier – BI-RADS die 5. – eine Kurzmitteilung aus deutsch-/österreichischer Sicht. Rofo 2016; 188: 346-352
• 73 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment (2009 [addendum 2014]). Online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg81/evidence/addendum-242246990
• 74 Bennani-Baiti B, Bennani-Baiti N, Baltzer PA. Diagnostic Performance of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Non-Calcified Equivocal Breast Findings: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0160346
• 75 Fancellu A, Turner RM, Dixon JM. et al. Meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative breast MRI on the surgical management of ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Surg 2015; 102: 883-893
• 76 Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg 2013; 257: 249-255
• 77 Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 26-38
• 78 Elkin EB, Kim SH, Casper ES. et al. Desire for information and involvement in treatment decisions: elderly cancer patientsʼ preferences and their physiciansʼ perceptions. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 5275-5280
• 79 Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, in Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions: An Update to the 2009 Report. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014
• 80 Ahn HS, Kim SM, Jang M. et al. Comparison of sonography with sonographically guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy and core-needle biopsy for initial axillary staging of breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med 2013; 32: 2177-2184
• 81 Ganott MA, Zuley ML, Abrams GS. et al. Ultrasound Guided Core Biopsy versus Fine Needle Aspiration for Evaluation of Axillary Lymphadenopathy in Patients with Breast Cancer. ISRN Oncol 2014; 2014: 703160
• 82 Rao R, Lilley L, Andrews V. et al. Axillary staging by percutaneous biopsy: sensitivity of fine-needle aspiration versus core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 1170-1175
• 83 Rautiainen S, Masarwah A, Sudah M. et al. Axillary lymph node biopsy in newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer: comparative accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy versus core-needle biopsy. Radiology 2013; 269: 54-60
• 84 Bolívar AV, Alonso-Bartolomé P, García EO. et al. Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions: a prospective analysis in 204 cases. Acta Radiol 2005; 46: 690-695
• 85 Fishman JE, Milikowski C, Ramsinghani R. et al. US-guided core-needle biopsy of the breast: how many specimens are necessary?. Radiology 2003; 226: 779-782
• 86 Schulz-Wendtland R, Aichinger U, Krämer S. et al. [Sonographical breast biopsy: how many core biopsy specimens are needed?]. Rofo 2003; 175: 94-98
• 87 Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K. et al. Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152: 238-246
• 88 Department of Health. Diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with breast cancer. National Clinical Guideline No. 7. June 2015. ISSN 2009-6259. Online: https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/5/cancer/profinfo/guidelines/breast/ last access: May 2016
• 89 Runowicz CD, Leach CR, Henry NL. et al. American Cancer society/American society of clinical oncology breast Cancer survivorship care guideline. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66: 43-73
• 90 Shah C, Ahlawat S, Khan A. et al. The Role of MRI in the Follow-up of Women Undergoing Breast-conserving Therapy. Am J Clin Oncol 2016; 39: 314-319
• 91 Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC, Smith TJ. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 5091-5097
• 92 Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R. Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2738-2746
• 93 Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A. et al. Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (04) CD001768
• 94 Gulliford T, Opomu M, Wilson E. et al. Popularity of less frequent follow up for breast cancer in randomised study: initial findings from the hotline study. BMJ 1997; 314: 174-177
• 95 Hurria A, Hudis C. Follow-up care of breast cancer survivors. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2003; 48: 89-99
• 96 Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C. et al. Intensive vs. clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: 10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer Follow-up. JAMA 1999; 281: 1586
• 97 Pestalozzi BC, Luporsi-Gely E, Jost LM. et al. ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up of primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2005; 16 (Suppl. 01) i7-i9
• 98 Rosselli Del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi A. et al. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 1994; 271: 1593-1597
• 99 Ferzoco RM, Ruddy KJ. Optimal delivery of male breast cancer follow-up care: improving outcomes. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2015; 7: 371-379
• 100 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF). Supportive Therapie bei onkologischen PatientInnen-Konsultationsfassung, Langversion, 2016, AWMF Registernummer: 032-054OL. Online: http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Supportive-Therapie.95.0.html last access: 13.10.2016
• 101 Selby P, Gillis C, Haward R. Benefits from specialised cancer care. Lancet 1996; 348: 313-318
• 102 National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre. Recommendations for follow-up of women with early breast cancer. Surry Hills: NSW; 2010. Online: https://guidelines.canceraustralia.gov.au/guidelines/early_breast_cancer/
• 103 Dalberg K, Mattsson A, Sandelin K. et al. Outcome of treatment for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in early-stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998; 49: 69-78
• 104 Riebe E, Günther K, Schulz K. et al. Recurrent disease after breast preserving therapy (BPT) and radiation therapy for breast cancer – diagnostic yield of palpation, mammography and ultrasonography. Ultraschall Med 2007; 28: 394-400
• 105 Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U. et al. Optimizing breast cancer follow-up: diagnostic value and costs of additional routine breast ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37: 198-206
• 106 Aguiar-Bujanda D, Bohn-Sarmiento U, Aguiar-Morales J. False elevation of serum CA 15-3 levels in patients under follow-up for breast cancer. Breast J 2004; 10: 375-376
• 107 Bornhak S, Heidemann E, Herschlein HJ. et al. Symptom-oriented follow-up of early breast cancer is not inferior to conventional control. Results of a prospective multicentre study. Onkologie 2007; 30: 443-449
• 108 Hayes DF. Clinical practice. Follow-up of patients with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 2505-2513
• 109 Brennan MJ. Lymphedema following the surgical treatment of breast cancer: a review of pathophysiology and treatment. J Pain Symptom Manage 1992; 7: 110-116
• 110 Gesellschaft Deutschsprachiger Lymphologen (GDL). S2 k-Leitlinie Diagnostik und Therapie der Lymphödeme, AWMF Registernummer: 058-001. Online: http://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/058-001l_S2k_Diagnostik_und_Therapie_der_Lymphoedeme_2017-05.pdf
• 111 Armer J, Fu MR, Wainstock JM. et al. Lymphedema following breast cancer treatment, including sentinel lymph node biopsy. Lymphology 2004; 37: 73-91
• 112 Bani HA, Fasching PA, Lux MM. et al. Lymphedema in breast cancer survivors: assessment and information provision in a specialized breast unit. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 66: 311-318
• 113 Francis WP, Abghari P, Du W. et al. Improving surgical outcomes: standardizing the reporting of incidence and severity of acute lymphedema after sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection. Am J Surg 2006; 192: 636-639
• 114 Golshan M, Martin WJ, Dowlatshahi K. Sentinel lymph node biopsy lowers the rate of lymphedema when compared with standard axillary lymph node dissection. Am Surg 2003; 69: 209-211 discussion 212
• 115 Hamner JB, Fleming MD. Lymphedema therapy reduces the volume of edema and pain in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14: 1904-1908
• 116 Harris SR, Hugi MR, Olivotto IA. et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: 11. Lymphedema. CMAJ 2001; 164: 191-199
• 117 Hayes S, Cornish B, Newman B. Comparison of methods to diagnose lymphoedema among breast cancer survivors: 6-month follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 89: 221-226
• 118 Moseley AL, Carati CJ, Piller NB. A systematic review of common conservative therapies for arm lymphoedema secondary to breast cancer treatment. Ann Oncol 2007; 18: 639-646
• 119 Sanjuàn A, Vidal-Sicart S, Zanón G. et al. Clinical axillary recurrence after sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer: a follow-up study of 220 patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005; 32: 932-936
• 120 Torrenga H, Fabry H, van der Sijp JR. et al. Omitting axillary lymph node dissection in sentinel node negative breast cancer patients is safe: a long term follow-up analysis. J Surg Oncol 2004; 88: 4-7 discussion 7–8
• 121 Bonneterre J, Roché H. Kerbrat Pet al. Long-term cardiac follow-up in relapse-free patients after six courses of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, with either 50 or 100 mg of epirubicin, as adjuvant therapy for node-positive breast cancer: French adjuvant study group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 3070-3079
• 122 Jensen BV. Cardiotoxic consequences of anthracycline-containing therapy in patients with breast cancer. Semin Oncol 2006; 33 (3 Suppl. 8): S15-S21
• 123 Perez EA, Rodeheffer R. Clinical cardiac tolerability of trastuzumab. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 322-329
• 124 Tan-Chiu E, Yothers G, Romond E. et al. Assessment of cardiac dysfunction in a randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel, with or without trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy in node-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: NSABP B-31. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7811-7819
• 125 Le Deley MC, Suzan F, Cutuli B. et al. Anthracyclines, mitoxantrone, radiotherapy, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor: risk factors for leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome after breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 292-300
• 126 Smith RE. Risk for the development of treatment-related acute myelocytic leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome among patients with breast cancer: review of the literature and the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. Clin Breast Cancer 2003; 4: 273-279
• 127 Mom CH, Buijs C, Willemse PH. et al. Hot flushes in breast cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2006; 57: 63-77
• 128 Pritchard KI, Khan H, Levine M. Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: 14. The role of hormone replacement therapy in women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer. CMAJ 2002; 166: 1017-1022
• 129 Caine GJ, Stonelake PS, Rea D. et al. Coagulopathic complications in breast cancer. Cancer 2003; 98: 1578-1586
• 130 Gail MH, Costantino JP, Bryant J. et al. Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999; 91: 1829-1846
• 131 Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Chlebowski RT. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2003 update on the role of bisphosphonates and bone health issues in women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 4042-4057
• 132 Winer EP, Hudis C, Burstein HJ. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on the use of aromatase inhibitors as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: status report 2004. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 619-629
• 133 Dachverband Osteologie. Prophylaxe, Diagnostik und Therapie der Osteoporose bei postmenopausalen Frauen und bei Männern, Langversion, 2017, AWMF-Registernummer: 183/001. Online: http://www.dv-osteologie.org/dvo_leitlinien/dvo-leitlinie-2017
• 134 Edmonds M, McGuire H, Price J. Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (03) CD003200
• 135 Servaes P, Prins J, Verhagen S. et al. Fatigue after breast cancer and in chronic fatigue syndrome: similarities and differences. J Psychosom Res 2002; 52: 453-459
• 136 Petrek J, Seltzer V. Breast cancer in pregnant and postpartum women. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25: 944-950
• 137 Velentgas P, Daling JR, Malone KE. et al. Pregnancy after breast carcinoma: outcomes and influence on mortality. Cancer 1999; 85: 2424-2432
• 138 Sankila R, Heinavaara S, Hakulinen T. Survival of breast cancer patients after subsequent term pregnancy: “healthy mother effect”. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 170: 818-823
• 139 Donnelly J, Mack P, Donaldson LA. Follow-up of breast cancer: time for a new approach?. Int J Clin Pract 2001; 55: 431-433