Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2022; 82(09): 912-921
DOI: 10.1055/a-1912-7105
GebFra Science
Review/Übersicht

Update Mammakarzinom 2022 Teil 3 – Brustkrebs in frühen Krankheitsstadien

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Tanja N. Fehm
1   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
,
Manfred Welslau
2   Onkologie Aschaffenburg, Aschaffenburg, Germany
,
Volkmar Müller
3   Department of Gynecology, Hamburg-Eppendorf University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany
,
Diana Lüftner
4   Immanuel Hospital Märkische Schweiz & Medical University of Brandenburg Theodor-Fontane, Brandenburg, Buckow, Germany
,
Florian Schütz
5   Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Diakonissen-Stiftungs-Krankenhaus Speyer, Speyer, Germany
,
Peter A. Fasching
6   Erlangen University Hospital, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
,
Wolfgang Janni
7   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
,
Christoph Thomssen
8   Department of Gynaecology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
,
Isabell Witzel
3   Department of Gynecology, Hamburg-Eppendorf University Medical Center, Hamburg, Germany
,
Erik Belleville
9   ClinSol GmbH & Co KG, Würzburg, Germany
,
Michael Untch
10   Clinic for Gynecology and Obstetrics, Breast Cancer Center, Gynecologic Oncology Center, Helios Klinikum Berlin Buch, Berlin, Germany
,
Marc Thill
11   Agaplesion Markus Krankenhaus, Department of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
,
Hans Tesch
12   Oncology Practice at Bethanien Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
,
Nina Ditsch
13   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany
,
Michael P. Lux
14   Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Frauenklinik St. Louise, Paderborn, St. Josefs-Krankenhaus, Salzkotten, St. Vincenz Krankenhaus GmbH, Germany
,
Bahriye Aktas
15   Department of Gynecology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany
,
Maggie Banys-Paluchowski
16   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
,
Andreas Schneeweiss
17   National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg University Hospital and German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
,
Cornelia Kolberg-Liedtke
18   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
,
Andreas D. Hartkopf
7   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ulm University Hospital, Ulm, Germany
,
Achim Wöckel
19   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
,
Hans-Christian Kolberg
20   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Marienhospital Bottrop, Bottrop, Germany
,
Nadia Harbeck
21   Breast Center, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and CCC Munich LMU, LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany
,
Elmar Stickeler
22   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In dieser Übersichtsarbeit werden neueste Entwicklungen in der Prävention von Brustkrebs und Behandlung von Patientinnen mit frühen Krankheitsstadien mit Mammakarzinom zusammengefasst. Die Ermittlung von individuellen Erkrankungsrisiken nach molekularen Subtypen wurde in einer großen epidemiologischen Studie untersucht. Im Bereich der Behandlung gibt es neue Daten zur Langzeitnachbeobachtung der Aphinity-Studie ebenso wie neue Daten zur neoadjuvanten Therapie von HER2-positiven Patientinnen mit Atezolizumab. Biomarker wie Residual Cancer Burden wurden im Zusammenhang mit einer Pembrolizumab-Therapie untersucht. Eine Untersuchung des Genomic-Grade-Indexes bei älteren Patientinnen reiht sich ein in die Gruppe von Studien, die versucht, durch moderne Multigentests Patientinnen zu identifizieren, bei denen eine Chemotherapie vermieden werden kann, weil diese eine exzellente Prognose haben. Diese und weitere Aspekte der neuesten Entwicklungen bei der Diagnostik und Therapie des Mammakarzinoms werden in dieser Übersichtsarbeit beschrieben.

Schlüsselwörter

Brustkrebs - Frühstadium - adjuvante Therapie - neoadjuvante Therapie - Chemotherapie - endokrine Therapie


Publication History

Received: 20 July 2022

Accepted after revision: 31 July 2022

Article published online:
13 September 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 Lakhani SR, Reis-Filho JS, Fulford L. et al. Prediction of BRCA1 status in patients with breast cancer using estrogen receptor and basal phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 5175-5180
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 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; 36: 2281-2287
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Fasching PA, Yadav S, Hu C. et al. Mutations in BRCA1/2 and Other Panel Genes in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer-Association With Patient and Disease Characteristics and Effect on Prognosis. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39: 1619-1630
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 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; 110: 855-862
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Mavaddat N, Dorling L. et al. Pathology of Tumors Associated With Pathogenic Germline Variants in 9 Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8: e216744
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Hoyer J, Vasileiou G, Uebe S. et al. Addition of triple negativity of breast cancer as an indicator for germline mutations in predisposing genes increases sensitivity of clinical selection criteria. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 926
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kraus C, Hoyer J, Vasileiou G. et al. Gene panel sequencing in familial breast/ovarian cancer patients identifies multiple novel mutations also in genes others than BRCA1/2. Int J Cancer 2017; 140: 95-102
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Escala-Garcia M, Guo Q, Dork T. et al. Genome-wide association study of germline variants and breast cancer-specific mortality. Br J Cancer 2019; 120: 647-657
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Broeks A, Schmidt MK, Sherman ME. et al. Low penetrance breast cancer susceptibility loci are associated with specific breast tumor subtypes: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Hum Mol Genet 2011; 20: 3289-3303
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Fasching PA, Pharoah PD, Cox A. et al. The role of genetic breast cancer susceptibility variants as prognostic factors. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21: 3926-3939
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Escala-Garcia M, Abraham J, Andrulis IL. et al. A network analysis to identify mediators of germline-driven differences in breast cancer prognosis. Nat Commun 2020; 11: 312
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Fagerholm R, Khan S, Schmidt MK. et al. TP53-based interaction analysis identifies cis-eQTL variants for TP53BP2, FBXO28, and FAM53A that associate with survival and treatment outcome in breast cancer. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 18381-18398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hack CC, Emons J, Jud SM. et al. Association between mammographic density and pregnancies relative to age and BMI: a breast cancer case-only analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 166: 701-708
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 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;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Menarche, menopause, and breast cancer risk: individual participant meta-analysis, including 118 964 women with breast cancer from 117 epidemiological studies. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 1141-1151
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Colditz GA, Bohlke K. Priorities for the primary prevention of breast cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64: 186-194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50302 women with breast cancer and 96973 women without the disease. Lancet 2002; 360: 187-195
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 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; 47: 526-536
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Yang XR, Chang-Claude J, Goode EL. et al. Associations of breast cancer risk factors with tumor subtypes: a pooled analysis from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 250-263
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Stickeler E, Aktas B, Behrens A. et al. Update Breast Cancer 2021 Part 1 – Prevention and Early Stages. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 526-538
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Huober J, Schneeweiss A, Hartkopf AD. et al. Update Breast Cancer 2020 Part 3 – Early Breast Cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2020; 80: 1105-1114
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Jung AY, Ahearn TU, Behrens S. et al. Distinct reproductive risk profiles for intrinsic-like breast cancer subtypes: pooled analysis of population-based studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Ramazzini B. De morbis artificium diatriba. 1700.
    PubMed
  • 30 Kiechl S, Schramek D, Widschwendter M. et al. Aberrant regulation of RANKL/OPG in women at high risk of developing breast cancer. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 3811-3825
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Sigl V, Jones LP, Penninger JM. RANKL/RANK: from bone loss to the prevention of breast cancer. Open Biol 2016;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Sigl V, Owusu-Boaitey K, Joshi PA. et al. RANKL/RANK control Brca1 mutation-driven mammary tumors. Cell Res 2016; 26: 761-774
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Wunderle M, Ruebner M, Haberle L. et al. RANKL and OPG and their influence on breast volume changes during pregnancy in healthy women. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 5171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Mintz R, Wang M, Xu S. et al. Hormone and receptor activator of NF-kappaB (RANK) pathway gene expression in plasma and mammographic breast density in postmenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res 2022; 24: 28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Ditsch N, Wöcke A, Untch M. et al. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2022. Breast Care 2022;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Francis PA, Pagani O, Fleming GF. et al. Tailoring Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Premenopausal Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 122-137
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Regan MM, Francis PA, Pagani O. et al. Absolute improvements in freedom from distant recurrence with adjuvant endocrine therapies for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) HER2-negative breast cancer (BC): Results from TEXT and SOFT. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (Suppl.) Abstr.. 503
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Pagani O, Regan MM, Walley BA. et al. Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 107-118
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF. et al. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 436-446
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Baek SY, Noh WC, Ahn S-H. et al. Adding ovarian function suppression to tamoxifen in young women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer who remain premenopausal or resume menstruation after chemotherapy: 8-year follow-up of the randomized ASTRRA trial. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 506
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 von Minckwitz G, Procter M, de Azambuja E. et al. Adjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 122-131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS. et al. Trastuzumab Emtansine for Residual Invasive HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 380: 617-628
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Chan A, Moy B, Mansi J. et al. Final Efficacy Results of Neratinib in HER2-positive Hormone Receptor-positive Early-stage Breast Cancer From the Phase III ExteNET Trial. Clin Breast Cancer 2021; 21: 80-91.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Martin M, Holmes FA, Ejlertsen B. et al. Neratinib after trastuzumab-based adjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer (ExteNET): 5-year analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 1688-1700
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH. et al. 5-year analysis of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in patients with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17: 791-800
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Loibl S, Jassem J, Sonnenblick A. et al. Updated Results of Aphinity at 8.4 years median follow up. ESMO Virtual Plenary 2022; July 14, 2022.
    PubMed
  • 49 Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R. et al. Event-free Survival with Pembrolizumab in Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2022;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L. et al. Pembrolizumab for Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 810-821
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Huober J, Barrios CH, Niikura N. et al. Atezolizumab With Neoadjuvant Anti-Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Therapy and Chemotherapy in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Primary Results of the Randomized Phase III IMpassion050 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2022;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Miles D, Gligorov J, Andre F. et al. Primary results from IMpassion131, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase III trial of first-line paclitaxel with or without atezolizumab for unresectable locally advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2021; 32: 994-1004
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Jacob JB, Jacob MK, Parajuli P. Review of immune checkpoint inhibitors in immuno-oncology. Adv Pharmacol 2021; 91: 111-139
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R. et al. KEYNOTE-522: Phase III study of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy vs. placebo + chemotherapy, followed by adjuvant pembrolizumab vs. placebo for early-stage TNBC. Ann Oncol 2021;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Schmid P, Cortes J, Dent R. et al. KEYNOTE-522: Phase 3 Study of Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy versus Placebo + Chemotherapy as Neoadjuvant Treatment, Followed by Pembrolizumab versus Placebo as Adjuvant Treatment for Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). Ann Oncol 2019;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Huang M, OʼShaughnessy J, Zhao J. et al. Evaluation of Pathologic Complete Response as a Surrogate for Long-Term Survival Outcomes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 18: 1096-1104
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Huang M, OʼShaughnessy J, Zhao J. et al. Association of Pathologic Complete Response with Long-Term Survival Outcomes in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Cancer Res 2020; 80: 5427-5434
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Pusztai L, Denkert C, OʼShaughnessy J. et al. Event-free survival by residual cancer burden after neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + chemotherapy versus placebo + chemotherapy for early TNBC: Exploratory analysis from KEYNOTE-522. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 503-503
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Symmans WF, Yau C, Chen YY. et al. Assessment of Residual Cancer Burden and Event-Free Survival in Neoadjuvant Treatment for High-risk Breast Cancer: An Analysis of Data From the I-SPY2 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 2021; 7: 1654-1663
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R. et al. Long-Term Prognostic Risk After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Associated With Residual Cancer Burden and Breast Cancer Subtype. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 1049-1060
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C. et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 4414-4422
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 MD Anderson Cancer Center. Residual Cancer Burden Calculator. Accessed July 16, 2022 at: http://www3.mdanderson.org/app/medcalc/index.cfm?pagename=jsconvert3
    PubMed
  • 65 Gerdes J, Lelle RJ, Pickartz H. et al. Growth fractions in breast cancers determined in situ with monoclonal antibody Ki-67. J Clin Pathol 1986; 39: 977-980
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M. Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7212-7220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM. et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: results from Breast International Group Trial 1-98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5569-5575
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D. et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 736-750
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM. et al. Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 174-183
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 von Minckwitz G, Schmitt WD, Loibl S. et al. Ki67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19: 4521-4531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Penault-Llorca F, Radosevic-Robin N. Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology 2017; 49: 166-171
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 74 Fasching PA, Gass P, Haberle L. et al. Prognostic effect of Ki-67 in common clinical subgroups of patients with HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 175: 617-625
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 75 Smith I, Robertson J, Kilburn L. et al. Long-term outcome and prognostic value of Ki67 after perioperative endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer (POETIC): an open-label, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2020; 21: 1443-1454
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 76 Nielsen TO, Leung SCY, Rimm DL. et al. Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113: 808-819
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 77 Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, Rimm DL. et al. Ki67 as a Companion Diagnostic: Good or Bad News?. J Clin Oncol 2022;
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 78 Tarantino P, Burstein HJ, Lin NU. et al. Should Ki-67 be adopted to select breast cancer patients for treatment with adjuvant abemaciclib?. Ann Oncol 2022; 33: 234-238
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 79 Harbeck N, Rastogi P, Martin M. et al. Adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy for high-risk early breast cancer: updated efficacy and Ki-67 analysis from the monarchE study. Ann Oncol 2021; 32: 1571-1581
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 80 Buus R, Sestak I, Kronenwett R. et al. Molecular Drivers of Oncotype DX, Prosigna, EndoPredict, and the Breast Cancer Index: A TransATAC Study. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39: 126-135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 81 Cardoso F, vanʼt Veer LJ, Bogaerts J. et al. 70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 717-729
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 82 Paik S, Shak S, Tang G. et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2817-2826
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 83 Piccart M, van ʼt Veer LJ, Poncet C. et al. 70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22: 476-488
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 84 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 85 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 86 Kalinsky K, Barlow WE, Gralow JR. et al. 21-Gene Assay to Inform Chemotherapy Benefit in Node-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2021; 385: 2336-2347
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 87 Toussaint J, Sieuwerts AM, Haibe-Kains B. et al. Improvement of the clinical applicability of the Genomic Grade Index through a qRT-PCR test performed on frozen and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. BMC Genomics 2009; 10: 424
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 88 Sotiriou C, Desmedt C. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2006; 17 (Suppl. 10) x259-x262
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 89 Brain E, Viansone AA, Bourbouloux E. et al. Final results from a phase III randomized clinical trial of adjuvant endocrine therapy ± chemotherapy in women ≥ 70 years old with ER+ HER2- breast cancer and a high genomic grade index: The Unicancer ASTER 70s trial. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40: 500
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar