Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2019; 79(10): 1079-1089
DOI: 10.1055/a-1001-9925
GebFra Science
Review/Übersicht
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Update Breast Cancer 2019 Part 4 – Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenges of New, Personalised Therapies for Patients with Early Breast Cancer

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Florian Schütz
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Peter A. Fasching
2   Erlangen University Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
,
Manfred Welslau
3   Onkologie Aschaffenburg, Aschaffenburg, Germany
,
Andreas D. Hartkopf
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
,
Achim Wöckel
5   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
,
Michael P. Lux
6   Kooperatives Brustzentrum Paderborn, Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe Frauenklinik St. Louise, Paderborn, St. Josefs-Krankenhaus, Salzkotten, Germany
,
Wolfgang Janni
7   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
,
Johannes Ettl
8   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
,
Diana Lüftner
9   Charité University Hospital, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Department of Hematology, Oncology and Tumour Immunology, Berlin, Germany
,
Erik Belleville
10   ClinSol GmbH & Co KG, Würzburg, Germany
,
Hans-Christian Kolberg
11   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Marienhospital Bottrop, Bottrop, Germany
,
Friedrich Overkamp
12   OncoConsult Hamburg GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
,
Florin-Andrei Taran
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
,
Sara Y. Brucker
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
,
Markus Wallwiener
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Hans Tesch
13   Oncology Practice at Bethanien Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
,
Tanja N. Fehm
14   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Andreas Schneeweiss
15   National Center for Tumor Diseases, Division Gynecologic Oncology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Volkmar Müller
16   Department of Gynecology, Hamburg-Eppendorf University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 24 July 2019
revised 04 August 2019

accepted 22 August 2019

Publication Date:
22 October 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The further development of therapies for women with early breast cancer is progressing far more slowly than in the case of patients with advanced breast cancer and is additionally delayed compared to developments in metastatic breast cancer. Nonetheless, significant advancements have been able to be recorded recently. This review summarises the latest developments in view of the most recent publications and professional conferences. For hormone-receptor-positive patients, new aspects for the duration of antihormone therapy and with regard to the benefits of multigene tests have been published. In the case of HER2-positive patients, the value of post-neoadjuvant therapy and de-escalation of the therapy is discussed. In patients with triple-negative breast cancer, there is a question of whether the knowledge of the biological background of a homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) helps develop new therapies for this subtype. In particular the “use” of a BRCA1/2 mutation or the biological characteristic HRD as a potential motive for therapy plays a role here in specifying the significance of platinum therapy and therapy with PARP inhibitors.

Key words

breast cancer - adjuvant - neoadjuvant - chemotherapy - antihormone therapy - multigene tests
 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Couch FJ, Hart SN, Sharma P. et al. Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 304-311
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Couch FJ, Kuchenbaecker KB, Michailidou K. et al. Identification of four novel susceptibility loci for oestrogen receptor negative breast cancer. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 11375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Couch FJ, Shimelis H, Hu C. et al. Associations Between Cancer Predisposition Testing Panel Genes and Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1190-1196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Garcia-Closas M, Couch FJ, Lindstrom S. et al. Genome-wide association studies identify four ER negative-specific breast cancer risk loci. Nat Genet 2013; 45: 392-398 398e1–398e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ghoussaini M, Fletcher O, Michailidou K. et al. Genome-wide association analysis identifies three new breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nat Genet 2012; 44: 312-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Michailidou K, Beesley J, Lindstrom S. et al. Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet 2015; 47: 373-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Michailidou K, Hall P, Gonzalez-Neira A. et al. Large-scale genotyping identifies 41 new loci associated with breast cancer risk. Nat Genet 2013; 45: 353-361 361e1–361e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Michailidou K, Lindstrom S, Dennis J. et al. Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci. Nature 2017; 551: 92-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Milne RL, Kuchenbaecker KB, Michailidou K. et al. Identification of ten variants associated with risk of estrogen-receptor-negative breast cancer. Nat Genet 2017; 49: 1767-1778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shimelis H, LaDuca H, Hu C. et al. Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Risk Genes Identified by Multigene Hereditary Cancer Panel Testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 2018; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djy106.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wu L, Shi W, Long J. et al. A transcriptome-wide association study of 229,000 women identifies new candidate susceptibility genes for breast cancer. Nat Genet 2018; DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0132-x.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wunderle M, Olmes G, Nabieva N. et al. Risk, Prediction and Prevention of Hereditary Breast Cancer – Large-Scale Genomic Studies in Times of Big and Smart Data. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2018; 78: 481-492
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stevens KN, Fredericksen Z, Vachon CM. et al. 19p13.1 is a triple-negative-specific breast cancer susceptibility locus. Cancer Res 2012; 72: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stevens KN, Vachon CM, Lee AM. et al. Common breast cancer susceptibility loci are associated with triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 6240-6249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Vachon CM, Scott CG, Tamimi RM. et al. Joint association of mammographic density adjusted for age and body mass index and polygenic risk score with breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res 2019; 21: 68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rudolph A, Song M, Brook MN. et al. Joint associations of a polygenic risk score and environmental risk factors for breast cancer in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Int J Epidemiol 2018; DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyx242.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Muranen TA, Greco D, Blomqvist C. et al. Genetic modifiers of CHEK2*1100delC-associated breast cancer risk. Genet Med 2017; 19: 599-603
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Brouckaert O, Rudolph A, Laenen A. et al. Reproductive profiles and risk of breast cancer subtypes: a multi-center case-only study. Breast Cancer Res 2017; 19: 119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Barrdahl M, Rudolph A, Hopper JL. et al. Gene-environment interactions involving functional variants: Results from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Int J Cancer 2017; 141: 1830-1840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schmidt MK, Hogervorst F, van Hien R. et al. Age- and Tumor Subtype-Specific Breast Cancer Risk Estimates for CHEK2*1100delC Carriers. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2750-2760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vachon CM, Pankratz VS, Scott CG. et al. The contributions of breast density and common genetic variation to breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju397.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rudolph A, Milne RL, Truong T. et al. Investigation of gene-environment interactions between 47 newly identified breast cancer susceptibility loci and environmental risk factors. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: E685-E696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rudolph A, Fasching PA, Behrens S. et al. A comprehensive evaluation of interaction between genetic variants and use of menopausal hormone therapy on mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res 2015; 17: 110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mavaddat N, Pharoah PD, Michailidou K. et al. Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv036.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jamshidi M, Fagerholm R, Khan S. et al. SNP-SNP interaction analysis of NF-kappaB signaling pathway on breast cancer survival. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 37979-37994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Milne RL, Herranz J, Michailidou K. et al. A large-scale assessment of two-way SNP interactions in breast cancer susceptibility using 46,450 cases and 42,461 controls from the breast cancer association consortium. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23: 1934-1946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nickels S, Truong T, Hein R. et al. Evidence of gene-environment interactions between common breast cancer susceptibility loci and established environmental risk factors. PLoS Genet 2013; 9: e1003284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Milne RL, Gaudet MM, Spurdle AB. et al. Assessing interactions between the associations of common genetic susceptibility variants, reproductive history and body mass index with breast cancer risk in the breast cancer association consortium: a combined case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12: R110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vachon CM, Scott CG, Fasching PA. et al. Common breast cancer susceptibility variants in LSP1 and RAD51L1 are associated with mammographic density measures that predict breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21: 1156-1166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mavaddat N, Michailidou K, Dennis J. et al. Polygenic Risk Scores for Prediction of Breast Cancer and Breast Cancer Subtypes. Am J Hum Genet 2018; DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.11.002.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wöckel A, Lux MP, Janni W. et al. Update Breast Cancer 2018 (Part 3) – Genomics, Individualized Medicine and Immune Therapies – in the Middle of a New Era: Prevention and Treatment Strategies for Early Breast Cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2018; 78: 1110-1118
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hartkopf AD, Müller V, Wöckel A. et al. Update Breast Cancer 2019 Part 1 – Implementation of Study Results of Novel Study Designs in Clinical Practice in Patients with Early Breast Cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2019; 79: 256-267
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Heusinger K, Jud SM, Haberle L. et al. Association of mammographic density with the proliferation marker Ki-67 in a cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135: 885-892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Heusinger K, Jud SM, Haberle L. et al. Association of mammographic density with hormone receptors in invasive breast cancers: results from a case-only study. Int J Cancer 2012; 131: 2643-2649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sigl V, Owusu-Boaitey K, Joshi PA. et al. RANKL/RANK control Brca1 mutation. Cell Res 2016; 26: 761-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sigl V, Owusu-Boaitey K, Joshi PA. et al. RANKL/RANK control Brca1 mutation-driven mammary tumors. Cell Res 2016; 26: 761-774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Sigl V, Jones LP, Penninger JM. RANKL/RANK: from bone loss to the prevention of breast cancer. Open Biol 2016; DOI: 10.1098/rsob.160230.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 ABCSG. Schon drei Frauen randomisiert! 2019. Online: https://wwwabcsgorg/abcsg-50-brca-p-schon-drei-frauen-randomisiert/ last access: 24.07.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Fasching PA, Hartkopf AD, Gass P. et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant pertuzumab in addition to chemotherapy and trastuzumab in routine clinical treatment of patients with primary breast cancer: a multicentric analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 173: 319-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH. et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 25-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L. et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1783-1791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS. et al. Trastuzumab Emtansine for Residual Invasive HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814017.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hurvitz SA, Martin M, Symmans WF. et al. Neoadjuvant trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and chemotherapy versus trastuzumab emtansine plus pertuzumab in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (KRISTINE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 115-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hurvitz SA, Martin M, Jung KH. et al. Neoadjuvant Trastuzumab Emtansine and Pertuzumab in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer: Three-Year Outcomes From the Phase III KRISTINE Study. J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.00882.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Bergh JCS, Andersson A, Bjohle J. et al. Docetaxel, trastuzumab, pertuzumab versus trastuzumab emtansine as neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: Results from the Swedish PREDIX HER2 trial identifying a new potential de-escalation standard?. J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.501.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Fasching PA, Gass P, Hein A. Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer – Advances and Limitations. Breast Care (Basel) 2016; 11: 313-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Fernandez-Gonzalez S, Falo C, Pla MJ. et al. The Shift From Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Performed Either Before or After Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in the Clinical Negative Nodes of Breast Cancer Patients. Results, and the Advantages and Disadvantages of Both Procedures. Clin Breast Cancer 2018; 18: 71-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Haeberle L. et al. Ki67, chemotherapy response, and prognosis in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Robertson JFR, Dowsett M, Bliss JM. et al. Peri‐operative Aromatase Inhibitor treatment in determining or predicting Longterm Outcome in Early Breast Cancer-the POETIC* Trial (CRUK/07/015) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5–9; San Antonio, TX Philadelphia (PA): AACR. Cancer Res 2018; 78: Abstr.. GS1-03
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU. et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1796-1804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M. et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384: 164-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Schneeweiss A, Chia S, Hickish T. et al. Long-term efficacy analysis of the randomised, phase II TRYPHAENA cardiac safety study: Evaluating pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus standard neoadjuvant anthracycline-containing and anthracycline-free chemotherapy regimens in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2018; 89: 27-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE. et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3351-3357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Schneeweiss A, Loibl S, Mamounas EP. et al. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KATHERINE: A phase III study of adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus trastuzumab (H) in patients (pts) with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.513.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Liedtke C, Jackisch C, Thill M. et al. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2018. Breast Care (Basel) 2018; 13: 196-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Thill M, Liedtke C, Muller V. et al. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Advanced and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Update 2018. Breast Care (Basel) 2018; 13: 209-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J. et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 2013; 381: 805-816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Gnant M, Steger G, Greil R. et al. A prospective randomized multi-center phase-III trial of additional 2 versus additional 5 years of Anastrozole after initial 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy – results from 3,484 postmenopausal women in the ABCSG-16 trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5–9; San Antonio, TX Philadelphia (PA): AACR. Cancer Res 2018; 78: Abstr.. GS3-01
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Del Mastro L, Mansutti M, Bisagni G. et al. Benefit from letrozole as extended adjuvant therapy after sequential endocrine therapy: A randomized, phase III study of Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM). J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.504.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Bartlett J, Sgroi D, Treuner K. et al. Trans-aTTom: Breast Cancer Index for prediction of endocrine benefit and late distant recurrence (DR) in patients with HR+ breast cancer treated in the adjuvant tamoxifen–To offer more? (aTTom) trial. J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.505.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Stearns V. Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy: Selecting the Optimal Path. 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting, Chicago 2019. Online: https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/175033/video last access: 30.06.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF. et al. Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 111-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF. et al. Prospective Validation of a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2005-2014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF. et al. Impact of clinical risk category on prognosis and prediction of chemotherapy benefit in early breast cancer (EBC) by age and the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) in TAILORx. J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.503.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Fasching PA, Schneeweiss A, Kolberg HC. et al. Translational highlights in breast cancer research and treatment: recent developments with clinical impact. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2019; 31: 67-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Im SA, Lu YS, Bardia A. et al. Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903765.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Novartis. Novartis Kisqali significantly prolongs life in women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer now in two distinct Phase III trials. Novartis Press Release; 2019 Online: https://www.novartis.com/news/media-releases/novartis-kisqali-significantly-prolongs-life-women-hrher2-advanced-breast-cancer-now-two-distinct-phase-iii-trials last access: 03.08.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S. et al. Phase III Randomized Study of Ribociclib and Fulvestrant in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: MONALEESA-3. J Clin Oncol 2018; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.9909.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Nabieva N, Kellner S, Fehm T. et al. Influence of patient and tumor characteristics on early therapy persistence with letrozole in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: results of the prospective Evaluate-TM study with 3941 patients. Ann Oncol 2018; 29: 186-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Nabieva N, Fehm T, Haberle L. et al. Influence of side-effects on early therapy persistence with letrozole in post-menopausal patients with early breast cancer: Results of the prospective EvAluate-TM study. Eur J Cancer 2018; 96: 82-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Basch EM, Deal AM, Dueck AC. et al. Overall survival results of a randomized trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35 (Suppl.) Abstr.. LBA2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Hartkopf AD, Graf J, Simoes E. et al. Electronic-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes: Willingness, Needs, and Barriers in Adjuvant and Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients. JMIR Cancer 2017; 3: e11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Tresp V, Overhage JM, Bundschus M. et al. Going Digital: A Survey on Digitalization and Large-Scale Data Analytics in Healthcare. P IEEE 2016; 104: 2180-2206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Wallwiener M, Matthies L, Simoes E. et al. Reliability of an e-PRO Tool of EORTC QLQ-C30 for Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Breast Cancer: Prospective Randomized Trial. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19: e322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Katzorke N, Rack BK, Haeberle L. et al. Prognostic value of HER2 on breast cancer survival. J Clin Oncol 2013; DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.640.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Untch M, Jackisch C, Schneeweiss A. et al. NAB-Paclitaxel Improves Disease-Free Survival in Early Breast Cancer: GBG 69-GeparSepto. J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.18.01842.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Wurfel F, Erber R, Huebner H. et al. TILGen: A Program to Investigate Immune Targets in Breast Cancer Patients – First Results on the Influence of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes. Breast Care (Basel) 2018; 13: 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Schneeweiss A, Jackisch C, Schmatloch S. et al. Survival analysis of the prospectively randomized phase III GeparSepto trial comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with weekly nab-paclitaxel with solvent-based paclitaxel followed by anthracycline-cyclosphosphamide for patients with early breast cancer – GBG69 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5–9; San Antonio, TX Philadelphia (PA): AACR. Cancer Res 2018; 78: Abstr.. GS3-05
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Gass P, Lux MP, Rauh C. et al. Prediction of pathological complete response and prognosis in patients with neoadjuvant treatment for triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Hahnen E, Lederer B, Hauke J. et al. Germline Mutation Status, Pathological Complete Response, and Disease-Free Survival in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the GeparSixto Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1378-1385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Untch M, von Minckwitz G, Konecny GE. et al. PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer–outcome on prognosis. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1999-2006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE. et al. PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel ± darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer–results at the time of surgery. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1988-1998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Fasching PA, Loibl S, Hu C. et al. BRCA1/2 Mutations and Bevacizumab in the Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer: Response and Prognosis Results in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer From the GeparQuinto Study. J Clin Oncol 2018; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.2285.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Sikov WM, Polley M-Y, Twohy E. et al. CALGB (Alliance) 40603: Long-term outcomes (LTOs) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) +/- carboplatin (Cb) and bevacizumab (Bev) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). J Clin Oncol 2019; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.591.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, Loibl S. et al. Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 747-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Sikov WM, Berry DA, Perou CM. et al. Impact of the addition of carboplatin and/or bevacizumab to neoadjuvant once-per-week paclitaxel followed by dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide on pathologic complete response rates in stage II to III triple-negative breast cancer: CALGB 40603 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 13-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Loibl S, OʼShaughnessy J, Untch M. et al. Addition of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus carboplatin or carboplatin alone to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer (BrighTNess): a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 497-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Scully R, Panday A, Elango R. et al. DNA double-strand break repair-pathway choice in somatic mammalian cells. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41580-019-0152-0.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Sharma P, Barlow WE, Godwin AK. et al. Impact of homologous recombination deficiency biomarkers on outcomes in patients with triple-negative breast cancer treated with adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (SWOG S9313). Ann Oncol 2018; 29: 654-660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Mayer EL, Abramson VG, Jankowitz RC. et al. TBCRC030: A randomized phase II study of preoperative cisplatin versus paclitaxel in TNBC–Evaluating the homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) biomarker. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (Suppl.) Abstr.. 507
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Loibl S, Weber KE, Timms KM. et al. Survival analysis of carboplatin added to an anthracycline/taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and HRD score as predictor of response – final results from GeparSixto. Ann Oncol 2018; DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy460.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Tutt A, Tovey H, Cheang MCU. et al. Carboplatin in BRCA1/2-mutated and triple-negative breast cancer BRCAness subgroups: the TNT Trial. Nat Med 2018; 24: 628-637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Fasching P, Jackisch C, Rhiem K. et al. GeparOLA: A randomized phase II trial to assess the efficacy of paclitaxel and olaparib in comparison to paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients (pts) with HER2-negative early breast cancer (BC) and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). J Clin Oncol 2019; 37 (Suppl.) Abstr.. 506
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Darb-Esfahani S. et al. Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis in different subtypes of breast cancer: a pooled analysis of 3771 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 40-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS. et al. Atezolizumab and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 2108-2121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Merck. Merckʼs KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab) in Combination with Chemotherapy Met Primary Endpoint of Pathological Complete Response (pCR) in Pivotal Phase 3 KEYNOTE-522 Trial in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). 2019. Online: https://www.mrknewsroom.com/news-release/oncology/mercks-keytruda-pembrolizumab-combination-chemotherapy-met-primary-endpoint-pa last access: 29.07.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Schmid P, Cortes J, Bergh JCS. et al. KEYNOTE-522: Phase III study of pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) vs. placebo + chemo as neoadjuvant therapy followed by pembro vs. placebo as adjuvant therapy for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). J Clin Oncol 2018; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.TPS602.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Clinicaltrials.gov. Study of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) Plus Chemotherapy vs. Placebo Plus Chemotherapy as Neoadjuvant Therapy and Pembrolizumab vs. Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy in Participants With Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) (MK-3475-522/KEYNOTE-522). Online: https://clinicaltrialsgov/ct2/show/NCT03036488%202019 last access: 24.07.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 ABCSG. ABCSG 50/BRCA-P Übersicht. Online: https://www.abcsg.org/abcsg-studien/abcsg-studien-open/abcsg-studien-mammakarzinom-status-open/abcsg-50-brca-p/abcsg-50-brca-p-uebersicht/ last access: 24.07.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar