Download PDF
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2012; 72(3): 215-224
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1298320
GebFra Science
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Breast Cancer: State of the Art and New Findings

Das Mammakarzinom: State of the Art und Neuigkeiten
C. Melcher
1   Womenʼs Clinic, Hospital of the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
,
C. Scholz
1   Womenʼs Clinic, Hospital of the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
,
B. Jäger
2   Department and Outpatient Clinic for Gynaecology and Obstetrics – Innenstadt, Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilian , University of Munich, Munich
,
C. Hagenbeck
1   Womenʼs Clinic, Hospital of the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
,
B. Rack
2   Department and Outpatient Clinic for Gynaecology and Obstetrics – Innenstadt, Hospital of the Ludwig Maximilian , University of Munich, Munich
,
W. Janni
1   Womenʼs Clinic, Hospital of the Heinrich Heine University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 22 December 2011
revised 12 March 2012

accepted 1 02 March 2012

Publication Date:
05 April 2012 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Advances in research have a highly influential role to play in the strategy of early detection, treatment and aftercare of breast cancer and therefore everyday clinical practice. Newly-defined prognosis factors and a new form of molecular subtype classification, for example, are intended to help identify patients who will actually benefit from chemotherapy. In the field of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the inclusion of the angiogenesis inhibitor Bevacizumab and dual antiHER2 therapy is being discussed. Whatʼs more, where defined criteria are met, even with positive sentinel lymph nodes, axillary dissection is not performed; besides bisphosphonates RANKL antibody Denosumab is now an option in the treatment of bone metastases.

Zusammenfassung

Die Fortschritte in der Forschung beeinflussen maßgeblich die Strategie der Früherkennung, Behandlung und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms und damit den klinischen Alltag. Neu definierte Prognosefaktoren sowie eine neue molekulare Subtypen-Klassifikation sollen helfen, Patientinnen zu identifizieren, die tatsächlich von einer Chemotherapie profitieren werden. Im Bereich der neoadjuvanten Chemotherapie werden die Hinzunahme des Angiogenesehemmers Bevacizumab und eine duale Anti-HER2-Therapie diskutiert. Zudem darf beim Vorliegen definierter Kriterien auch bei positivem Sentinellymphknoten auf eine Axilladissektion verzichtet werden, und bei der Behandlung ossärer Metastasen steht uns nun neben den Bisphosphonaten der RANKL-Antikörper Denosumab zur Verfügung.

Key words

breast cancer - molecular genetic subtypes - chemotherapy - targeted therapy - endocrine therapy - radiotherapy - prognosis

Schlüsselwörter

Mammakarzinom - molekulargenetische Subtypen - Chemotherapie - zielgerichtete Therapie - endokrine Therapie - Radiotherapie - Prognose

Supporting Information

 

  • References

  • 1 Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al. Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1736-1747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Scholzen T, Gerdes J. The Ki-67 protein: from the known and the unknown. J Cell Physiol 2000; 182: 311-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Untch M, Gerber B, Möbus V et al. Zurich consensus: statement of German experts on St. Gallen conference 2011 on breast cancer (Zurich 2011). Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 381-390
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 AGO-Empfehlungen Gynäkologische Onkologie – Kommission Mamma. Deutsche Version 11.1.0. http://www.ago-online.org last access: 7.11.2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cristofanilli M. Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol 2006; 33 (3) (Suppl. 09) S9-S14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rack B. Prognostic relevance of circulating tumor cells in the peripheral blood of primary breast cancer patients. SABCS 2010; Abstract S6-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Hartkopf A, Banys M, Krawczyk N et al. Circulating tumor cells in early-stage breast cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 12: 1067-1072
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol 2007; 18: 1927-1934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 1940-1949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2672-2685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kaufmann M. Long-term results from the neoadjuvant GeparDuo trial. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (Suppl. 15) Abstract 537
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R et al. International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2600-2608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kreienberg R, Kopp I, Albert U. Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, 2008. http://www.dggg.de/leitlinien Stand: 7.11.2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa S et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy adapted by interim response improves overall survival of primary breast cancer patients – results of the GeparTrio trial. SABCS 2011; Abstract S3-2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 OʼHiggins N, Linos DA, Blichert-Toft M et al. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the surgical Management of mammographically detected Lesions. In: Perry N, et al., eds. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006: 315-321
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1233-1241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1227-1232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Blamey RW. The role of the radiologist in breast diagnosis: a surgeonʼs personal view. Clin Radiol 1998; 53: 393-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Blichert-Toft M, Smola MG, Cataliotti L et al. on behalf of the European Society of Surgical Oncology. Principles and guidelines for surgeons – management of symptomatic breast cancer. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1998; 87: 101-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Palesty JA, Foster JM, Hurd TC et al. Axillary recurrence in women with a negative sentinel lymph node and no axillary dissection in breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 2006; 93: 129-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Smidt ML, Janssen CM, Kuster DM et al. Axillary recurrence after a negative sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer: incidence and clinical significance. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12: 29-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fleissig A, Fallowfield LJ, Langridge CI et al. Post-operative arm morbidity and quality of life. Results of the ALMANAC randomised trial comparing sentinel node biopsy with standard axillary treatment in the management of patients with early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 95: 279-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB et al. Primary outcome results of NSABP B-32, a randomized phase III clinical trial to compare sentinel node resection (SNR) to conventional axillary dissection (AD) in clinically node-negative breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (18) (Suppl.): Abstract LBA505
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV et al. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011; 305: 569-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S et al. International, and B.C.S.G.T.-Investigators. Update of International Breast Cancer Study Group trial 23-01 to compare axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with clinically node negative breast cancer and micrometastases in the sentinel node. SABCS 2011; Abstract S3-1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD et al. Improved outcomes from adding sequential Paclitaxel but not from escalating Doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 976-983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M et al. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS01 trial. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 5664-5671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kaufmann M, Rody R. Breast cancer: reduced mortality by early detection and adjuvant therapy. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2009; 69: 218-232
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Boccardo F, Rubagotti A, Guglielmini P et al. Switching to anastrozole versus continued tamoxifen treatment of early breast cancer. Updated results of the Italian tamoxifen anastrozole (ITA) trial. Ann Oncol 2006; 17 (Suppl. 07) vii10-vii14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Coombes RC, Kilburn LS, Snowdon CF et al. Survival and safety of exemestane versus tamoxifen after 2–3 yearsʼ tamoxifen treatment (Intergroup Exemestane Study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369: 559-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Belkacemi Y, Laharie-Mineur H, Gligorov J et al. [Potential risk and benefit of the combination of trastuzumab to chemotherapy and radiation therapy in non-metastatic breast cancer]. Cancer Radiother 2007; 11: 266-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Van de Steene J, Vinh-Hung V, Cutuli B et al. Adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer: effects of longer follow-up. Radiother Oncol 2004; 72: 35-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Clarke R. 21st century challenges in radiation protection and shielding: draft 2005 recommendations of ICRP. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 115 (1–4) 10-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Antonini N, Jones H, Horiot JC et al. Effect of age and radiation dose on local control after breast conserving treatment: EORTC trial 22881-10882. Radiother Oncol 2007; 82: 265-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Truong PT, Lee J, Kader HA et al. Locoregional recurrence risks in elderly breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 1267-1277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Fasching PA, Fehm T, Janni W et al. Breast cancer therapy – a state of the art review. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 11: 875-886
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Thompson AM, Jordan LB, Quinlan P et al. Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Res 2010; 12: R92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Stockler M, Wilcken NR, Ghersi D et al. Systematic reviews of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev 2000; 26: 151-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Klijn JG, Biamey RW, Boccardo F et al. Combined tamoxifen and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist versus LHRH agonist alone in premenopausal advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 343-353
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Liedtke C, Wolf MK, Kiesel L. New concepts for targeted systemic therapy in breast cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70: 625-633
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y et al. Superior efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III study of the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 2596-2606
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rosen LS, Gordon D, Kaminski M et al. Zoledronic acid versus pamidronate in the treatment of skeletal metastases in patients with breast cancer or osteolytic lesions of multiple myeloma: a phase III, double-blind, comparative trial. Cancer J 2001; 7: 377-387
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Stopeck AT, Lipton A, Body JJ et al. Denosumab compared with zoledronic acid for the treatment of bone metastases in patients with advanced breast cancer: a randomized, double-blind study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 5132-5139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 F. N. World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research ed. Physical activity and the prevention of cancer. A global perspective. Washington, DC: AICR; 2007
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Andergassen U, Rack B, Annecke K et al. Obesity and tumor characteristic sin nodal-positive early-stage breast cancer: Results of the German ADEBAR study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28 (Suppl.) 15s (Abstr. 591)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Chlebowski RT et al. Dietary fat reduction and breast cancer outcome: interim efficacy results from the Womenʼs Intervention Nutrition Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 1767-1776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kleeberg UR. Körperliche Aktivität und Brustkrebs – Prävention und Nachsorge. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2009; 69: 423-425
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 The GIVIO Investigators. Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1994; 271: 1587-1592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar