Search

Background: Prognostication has been used to identify patient populations that could potentially benefit from treatment de-escalation. In patients with hormone receptor-positive (HRpos), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2neg) early breast cancer (eBC), treatment de-escalation classically involved omitting chemotherapy. With recently developed specialized therapies that require hands-on side-effect management, the therapeutic landscape is changing and therapy decisions are no longer based only on prognosis, but also consider potential side-effects. Therefore, identification of patient groups based on prognostication has gained importance., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective analysis, a population of 2359 node-negative HRpos/HER2neg eBC patients was selected from all patients treated at the University Breast Center of Franconia, Germany between 2002 and 2021. The prognostic value of the IHC3 score (incorporating immunohistochemical measurements of the estrogen and progesterone receptor status and Ki-67) with clinical parameters (lymph node status, tumor stage, grading) regarding invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed., Results: IHC3 positively correlated with Ki-67 expression and inversely correlated with hormone receptor expression. IHC3 categorized into quartiles identified patients with a more unfavorable prognosis: 5-year and 10-year iDFS rates for patients in the highest versus the lowest quartile were 84% versus 95% and 70% versus 88%, respectively. A sensitivity analysis of distant disease-free survival showed similar results to those of iDFS. Five-year and 10-year OS rates for patients in the highest versus the lowest quartile were, respectively, 92% versus 97% and 81% versus 92%., Conclusions: IHC3 is able to define prognostic groups in patients with node-negative, HRpos/HER2neg eBC. Node-negative patients with a high IHC3 score had the worst prognosis, which was comparable to that of node-positive patients described in recent trials. This simple and cost-effective tool could thus potentially aid in identifying patient groups for innovative therapeutic approaches., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The beneficial impact of physical training in lowering cancer risk is well known. However, the precise mechanisms linking physical training and cancer are not fully understood. Skeletal muscle releases various myokines that seem to possess a direct anti-tumor effect. Although breast cancer (BC) is the prevalent form of cancer among women on a global scale, only limited data are available about the secretion of myokines following exercise in patients with BC. To study the effects of exercise on BC, the blood samples of patients with varied stages of BC were analyzed after 12 weeks of resistance training with whole-body electromyostimulation (WB-EMS). Following the training period, we observed that resistance training helps these patients to improve their physical characteristics and performance function by increasing skeletal muscle mass and strengthening their hand grip. Notably, the patient's serum was found to inhibit the growth and promote the apoptosis of BC cells in vitro. Moreover, the conditioned medium collected from in vitro stimulated human myotubes using electric pulse stimulation (EPS), an in vitro simulation of WB-EMS training, induced the cell death of BC cells. These results highlighted the direct cancer-protective effects of activated skeletal muscle. In line with our observed effects of serum from exercise-trained pancreatic and prostate cancer patients, the growth of BC cells was notably inhibited when supplemented directly with recombinant myokines C-X-C motif ligand 1 (CXCL1), Interleukin 10 (IL10), and C-C motif chemokine ligand 4 (CCL4). Notably, treatment with these myokines also increased the expression of caspase 3/7 ( Casp3/7 ), resulting in enhanced BC cell death. Our data strongly suggest that physical exercise has a positive impact on skeletal muscle mass and hand grip strength in BC patients, along with a significant anti-tumor effect in BC cells. This shows promising potential for considering sports and physical training as supportive therapies for achieving more impactful cancer treatment.

Background: Although adequate physical activity has been shown to be beneficial in early breast cancer, evidence in metastatic breast cancer is sparse and contradictory, which could be related to distinct effects of physical activity on the different molecular cancer subtypes. Therefore, we here evaluated the effect of physical activity on progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) in metastatic breast cancer, specifically looking at molecular subtypes., Methods: International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) questionnaires, filled out by patients enrolled in the prospective PRAEGNANT registry (NCT02338167; n = 1,270) were used to calculate metabolic equivalent task (MET) minutes, which were subsequently categorized into low (n = 138), moderate (n = 995) or high IPAQ categories (n = 137). Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the impact of IPAQ categories and its interaction with molecular subtypes on PFS and OS., Results: Patient and tumor characteristics were equally distributed across IPAQ categories. HER2pos, HRpos and TNBC were present in 23.1%, 65.7% and 11.2% of patients, respectively. IPAQ scores did not have an impact on PFS and OS in addition to established prognostic factors, either overall or in particular molecular subtypes (PFS: p = 0.33 and OS: p = 0.08, likelihood ratio test). Exploratory analyses showed higher overall survival rates for high IPAQ categories compared to low/moderate IPAQ categories in luminal B-like breast cancer., Conclusions: Self-reported physical activity using the IPAQ questionnaire did not significantly affect PFS or OS in patients suffering from metastatic breast cancer. Nevertheless, some hypothesis-generating differences between molecular subtypes could be observed, which may be interesting to evaluate further., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Tumor-associated neutrophils (TANs) are important modulators of the tumor microenvironment with opposing functions that can promote and inhibit tumor progression. The prognostic role of TANs in early luminal breast cancer is unclear., Methods: A total of 144 patients were treated for early-stage hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer as part of an Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) phase II trial. Resection samples from multiple locations were processed into tissue microarrays and sections thereof immunohistochemically stained for CD66b+ neutrophils. CD66b+ neutrophil density was measured separately in the stromal and intraepithelial compartment., Results: High stromal and intraepithelial CD66b+ TAN density was a negative prognostic factor in central tumor samples. In addition, neutrophil density in adjacent normal breast tissue and lymph node samples also correlated with reduced disease-free survival. TAN density correlated with CD163+ M2-like tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) density, which we analyzed in a previous study. TANs were a negative prognostic factor in tumors with an elevated M1/M2 TAM ratio, while this impact on patient outcome was lost in tumors with a low M1/M2 ratio. A combined multivariate analysis of TAM and TAN density revealed that only TAM polarization status was an independent prognostic factor., Conclusions: CD66b+ neutrophils were a negative prognostic factor in early-stage luminal breast cancer in single-marker analysis. Combined analysis with TAMs could be necessary to correctly evaluate their prognostic impact in future studies. TAN recruitment might act as a compensatory mechanism of immunoevasion and disease progression in tumors that are unable to sufficiently attract and polarize TAMs.

In recent years, new targeted therapies have been developed to treat patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. Some of these therapies have not just become the new therapy standard but also led to significantly longer overall survival rates. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become the therapeutic standard for first-line therapy. Around 70 - 80% of patients are treated with a CDK4/6i. In recent years, a number of biomarkers associated with progression, clonal selection or evolution have been reported for CDK4/6i and their endocrine combination partners. Understanding the mechanisms behind treatment efficacy and resistance is important. A better understanding could contribute to planning the most effective therapeutic sequences and utilizing basic molecular information to overcome endocrine resistance. One study with large numbers of patients which aims to elucidate these mechanisms is the Comprehensive Analysis of sPatial, TempORal and molecular patterns of ribociclib efficacy and resistance in advanced Breast Cancer patients (CAPTOR BC) trial. This overview summarizes the latest clinical research on resistance to endocrine therapies, focusing on CDK4/6 inhibitors and discussing current study concepts., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt B. A. received honoria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. C. B. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. received honoraria from Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun and onkowissen.de for clinical research management and/or medical education activities. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and BioNtech. T. E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. T. N. F. has participated on advisory boards for Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis and Pfizer. A. D. H. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal and Pfizer. C. C. H. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. received speaker honoraria from Novartis. H. N. received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene and Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro and owns stock of Theraclion SA and Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex and Hexal and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and Eisai. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. B. R. reports research grants from Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata. Honoraria from AZ, Roche. C. R. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. A. S. received research grants from Celgene, Roche, honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. K. S. received travel support from Gilead and Lilly. F.-A. T. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor and AstraZeneca and has received trial funding from Exact Sciences and Endomag Manuscript support was provided by Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. all honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen and Eli Lilly. The other authors (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work./ B. A. erhielt Honorare und Reisekosten von AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo und Pfizer. C. B. ist Angestellte der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. erhielt Honorare von Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun und onkowissen.de für klinisches Forschungsmanagement und/oder Aktivitäten der medizinischen Fortbildung. S. Y. B. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. erhielt Honorare von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma und Teva. Seine Institution betreibt Forschung mit finanzieller Unterstützung von Novartis und BioNtech. T. E. erhielt Honorare von AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. T. N. F. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche und hat Vortragshonorare erhalten von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. C. C. H. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai und Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Novartis. H. N. erhielt Vortragshonorare und/oder Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten vn Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. erhielt Forschungsstipendien und/oder Honorare von Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene und Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, Reisekostenzuschüsse von Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro und besitzt Aktien von Theraclion SA und Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. erhielt Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex und Hexal und erhielt Vortragshonorare von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca und Eisai. V. M. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Beraterhonorare von Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead, institutionelle Forschungsförderung von Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. B. R. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata, Honorare von AZ, Roche. C. R. ist Angestellter der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. A. S. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Celgene, Roche, Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. K. S. erhielt Reisekostenzuschüsse von Gilead und Lilly. F.-A. T. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Celgene und Pfizer. M. T. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen und Roche, erhielt Vortragshonorare von Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor und AstraZeneca und erhielt Studienfinanzierung von Exact Sciences und Endomag; Unterstützung für das Manuskript kam von Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. Alle Honorare wurden an die Institution/den Arbeitergeber abgeführt: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen und Eli Lilly. Die anderen Autoren und Autorinnen (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) haben keine Interessenkonflikte zu melden., (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/ ).)

Introduction: Adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer (BC) should include an aromatase inhibitor (AI). Especially patients with a high recurrence risk might benefit from an upfront therapy with an AI for a minimum of five years. Nevertheless, not much is known about the patient selection for this population in clinical practice. Therefore, this study analyzed the prognosis and patient characteristics of postmenopausal patients selected for a five-year upfront letrozole therapy., Patients and Methods: From 2009 to 2011, 3529 patients were enrolled into the adjuvant phase IV PreFace clinical trial (NCT01908556). Postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive BC patients, for whom an upfront five-year therapy with letrozole (2.5 mg/day) was indicated, were eligible. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and safety in relation to patient and tumor characteristics were assessed., Results: 3297 patients started letrozole therapy. The majority of patients (n = 1639, 57%) completed the five-year treatment. 34.5% of patients continued with endocrine therapy after the mandated five-year endocrine treatment. Five-year DFS rates were 89% (95% CI: 88-90%) and five-year OS rates were 95% (95% CI: 94-96%). In subgroup analyses, DFS rates were 83%, 84% and 78% for patients with node-positive disease, G3 tumor grading, and pT3 tumors respectively. The main adverse events (any grade) were pain and hot flushes (66.8% and 18.3% of patients)., Conclusions: The risk profile of postmenopausal BC patients selected for a five-year upfront letrozole therapy showed a moderate recurrence and death risk. However, in subgroups with unfavorable risk factors, prognosis warrants an improvement, which might be achieved with novel targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest P. G. received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. K. A. received speaker honoraria from Roche Pharma AG, Pfizer Pharma GmbH and AstraZeneca. C. C. H. received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead and MSD, and received travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo. B. A. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Stemline, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Received travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, Eisai, Stemline, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. Participated in the data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. S. K. received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis and Roche. C. T. received honoraria for advisory boards and lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Zuellig, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Zuellig, Stemline, participated in data safety monitoring board or advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, SurgVision, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Amgen, Onkowissen, MSD, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Agendia, Lilly and owns stock of Theraclion SA. W. J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene and Johnson & Johnson. A. S. reported grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Cellgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen, and Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer and AstraZeneca. F. M. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, CureVac, Eisai, Genomic Health, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro. M. W. S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Clovis, Mylan, Roche, Gedeon Richter, Carl Zeiss Meditec, travel support from Pfizer, Carl Zeiss Meditec. C. J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. E. B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, Braun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. T. N. F. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Teva, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD. P. A. F. reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from Biontech, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from MSD, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from SeaGen, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Hexal, personal fees from Agendia, personal fees from Gilead. C.R. received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca, travel expenses from the Swiss Society of Senology and the Swiss Society of Gynecology. All of the remaining authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (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 commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide and a highly heterogeneous disease. Four different subtypes are described that differ in the expression of hormone receptors as well as the growth factor receptor HER2. Treatment modalities and survival rate depend on the subtype of breast cancer. However, it is still not clear which patients benefit from immunotherapeutic approaches such as checkpoint blockade. Thus, we aimed to decipher the immune cell signature of the different breast cancer subtypes based on high-dimensional flow cytometry followed by unbiased approaches. Here, we show that the frequency of NK cells is reduced in Luminal A and B as well as triple negative breast cancer and that the phenotype of residual NK cells is changed toward regulatory CD11b - CD16 - NK cells. Further, we found higher frequencies of PD-1 + CD4 + and CD8 + T cells in triple negative breast cancer. Moreover, while Luminal A-type breast cancer was enriched for CD14 + cDC2 (named type 3 DC (DC3)), CD14 - cDC2 (named DC2) were more frequent in triple negative breast cancer. In contrast, HER2-enriched breast cancer did not show major alterations in the composition of the immune cell compartment in the tumor microenvironment. These findings suggest that patients with Luminal A- and B-type as well as triple negative breast cancer might benefit from immunotherapeutic approaches targeting NK cells., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.)

Introduction: The receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB (RANK) pathway was associated with the pathogenesis of breast cancer. Several studies attempted to link the RANK/RANKL pathway to prognosis; however, with inconsistent outcomes. We aimed to further contribute to the knowledge about RANK/RANKL as prognostic factors in breast cancer. Within this study, protein expression of RANK and its ligand, RANKL, in the tumor tissue was analyzed in association with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in a study cohort of patients with early breast cancer., Patients and Methods: 607 samples of female primary and early breast cancer patients from the Bavarian Breast Cancer Cases and Controls Study were analyzed to correlate the RANK and RANKL expression with DFS and OS. Therefore, expression was quantified using immunohistochemical staining of a tissue microarray. H-scores were determined with the cut-off value of 8.5 for RANK and 0 for RANKL expression, respectively., Results: RANK and RANKL immunohistochemistry were assessed by H-score. Both biomarkers did not correlate (ρ = -0.04). According to molecular subtypes, triple-negative tumors and HER2-positive tumors showed a higher number of RANK-positive tumors (H-score ≥ 8.5), however, no subtype-specific expression of RANKL could be detected. Higher RANKL expression tended to correlate with a better prognosis. However, RANK and RANKL expression could not be identified as statistically significant prognostic factors within the study cohort., Conclusions: Tumor-specific RANK and RANKL expressions are not applicable as prognostic factors for DFS and OS, but might be associated with subtype-specific breast cancer progression., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest P.A.F. reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from BioNTech, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pierre Fabre, personal fees from SeaGen, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Hexal, personal fees from Agendia, personal fees from Gilead. P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis, MSD, and AstraZeneca. J.E. has received honoraria from Eisai, Pfizer, and Novartis. A.H. has received honoraria for lectures or consulting/advisory boards for Abbvie, Agilent, AstraZeneca, Biocartis, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cepheid, Diaceutics, Gilead, Illumina, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Pfizer, Qiagen, QUIP GmbH, Roche, Sanofi, 3DHistotech and other research support from AstraZeneca, Biocartis, Cepheid, Gilead, Illumina, Janssen, Nanostring, Novartis, Owkin, Qiagen, QUIP GmbH, Roche, Sanofi. M.F.P. declares advisory board membership for Biocartis, Cepheid, Lilly USA; reports a consultant role for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly & Company, Merck, Novartis, and Zymeworks; reports ownership interest in TORL Biotherapeutics; reports fee-for-service agreements from 1200 Pharma, Ambrx, TORL Biotherapeutics, TRIO, TRIO-US, and Zymeworks. The remaining authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest., (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 commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: High mammographic density (MD) is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer (BC). Changes in MD are influenced by multiple factors such as age, BMI, number of full-term pregnancies and lactating periods. To learn more about MD, it is important to establish non-radiation-based, alternative examination methods to mammography such as ultrasound assessments., Methods: We analyzed data from 168 patients who underwent standard-of-care mammography and performed additional ultrasound assessment of the breast using a high-frequency (12 MHz) linear probe of the VOLUSON ® 730 Expert system (GE Medical Systems Kretztechnik GmbH & Co OHG, Austria). Gray level bins were calculated from ultrasound images to characterize mammographic density. Percentage mammographic density (PMD) was predicted by gray level bins using various regression models., Results: Gray level bins and PMD correlated to a certain extent. Spearman's ρ ranged from - 0.18 to 0.32. The random forest model turned out to be the most accurate prediction model (cross-validated R 2 , 0.255). Overall, ultrasound images from the VOLUSON ® 730 Expert device in this study showed limited predictive power for PMD when correlated with the corresponding mammograms., Conclusions: In our present work, no reliable prediction of PMD using ultrasound imaging could be observed. As previous studies showed a reasonable correlation, predictive power seems to be highly dependent on the device used. Identifying feasible non-radiation imaging methods of the breast and their predictive power remains an important topic and warrants further evaluation. Trial registration 325-19 B (Ethics Committee of the medical faculty at Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

In our study, we observed the long-term survival outcomes investigated for HER2-0 and HER2-low-positive breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Between 1998 and 2020, 10,333 patients with primary breast cancer were treated, including 1373 patients with HER2-0 or HER2-low-positive disease with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Descriptive analyses were performed, and logistic regression models and survival analyses were calculated for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Among the 1373 patients, 930 (67.73%) had HER2-low-positive and 443 (32.27%) had HER2-0 tumors. Patients with HER2-0 tumors had a significantly better pathological complete response, 29.25% vs. 20.09%, and pathological complete response/in situ, 31.97% vs. 24.08%, than patients with HER2-low-positive tumors ( p < 0.001; p = 0.003), regardless of the hormone receptor (HR) status. No statistically significant differences were observed for the HR-positive ( p = 0.315; p = 0.43) or HR-negative subgroups ( p = 0.573; p = 0.931). DFS and OS were significantly longer for HR-positive, HER2-low-positive patients (log-rank p = 0.02; p = 0.012). OS was significantly longer for HR-negative, HER2-0 patients (log-rank p = 0.032). No significant DFS differences were found for the HR-negative cohort (log-rank p = 0.232). For the overall cohort, no significant differences were noted between HER2-low-positive and HER2-0 patients, either for DFS (log-rank p = 0.220) or OS (log-rank p = 0.403). These results show different survival outcomes for HER2-0 and HER2-low-positive tumors relative to HR status. These different cohorts can be identified using standardized immunohistochemistry, even retrospectively.

Background: Individual radiosensitivity is an important factor in the occurrence of undesirable consequences of radiotherapy. The potential for increased radiosensitivity has been linked to highly penetrant heterozygous mutations in DNA repair genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 . By studying the chromosomal radiosensitivity of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers compared to the general population, we study whether increased chromosomal radiation sensitivity is observed in patients with BRCA1/2 variants., Methods: Three-color-fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed on ex vivo-irradiated peripheral blood lymphocytes from 64 female patients with a heterozygous germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Aberrations in chromosomes #1, #2 and #4 were analyzed. Mean breaks per metaphase (B/M) served as the parameter for chromosomal radiosensitivity. The results were compared with chromosomal radiosensitivity in a cohort of generally healthy individuals and patients with rectal cancer or breast cancer., Results: Patients with BRCA1/2 mutations ( n = 64; B/M 0.47) overall showed a significantly higher chromosomal radiosensitivity than general healthy individuals ( n = 211; B/M 0.41) and patients with rectal cancer ( n = 379; B/M 0.44) and breast cancer ( n = 147; B/M 0.45) without proven germline mutations. Chromosomal radiosensitivity varied depending on the locus of the BRCA1/2 mutation., Conclusions: BRCA1/2 mutations result in slightly increased chromosomal sensitivity to radiation. A few individual patients have a marked increase in radiation sensitivity. Therefore, these patients are at a higher risk for adverse therapeutic consequences.

In order to evaluate organ-at-risk (OAR) doses in external-beam-accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) compared to standard whole-breast irradiation (WBI) after breast-conserving surgery. Between 2011 and 2021, 170 patients with early breast cancer received APBI within a prospective institutional single-arm trial. The prescribed dose to the planning treatment volume was 38 Gy in 10 fractions on 10 consecutive working days. OAR doses for the contralateral breast, the ipsilateral, contralateral, and whole lung, the whole heart, left ventricle (LV), and the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), and for the spinal cord and the skin were assessed and compared to a control group with real-world data from 116 patients who underwent WBI. The trial was registered at the German Clinical Trials Registry, DRKS-ID: DRKS00004417. Compared to WBI, APBI led to reduced OAR doses for the contralateral breast (0.4 ± 0.6 vs. 0.8 ± 0.9 Gy, p = 0.000), the ipsilateral (4.3 ± 1.4 vs. 9.2 ± 2.5 Gy, p = 0.000) and whole mean lung dose (2.5 ± 0.8 vs. 4.9 ± 1.5 Gy, p = 0.000), the mean heart dose (1.6 ± 1.6 vs. 1.7 ± 1.4 Gy, p = 0.007), the LV V23 (0.1 ± 0.4 vs. 1.4 ± 2.6%, p < 0.001), the mean LAD dose (2.5 ± 3.4 vs. 4.8 ± 5.5 Gy, p < 0.001), the maximum spinal cord dose (1.5 ± 1.1 vs. 4.5 ± 5.7 Gy, p = 0.016), and the maximum skin dose (39.6 ± 1.8 vs. 49.1 ± 5.8 Gy, p = 0.000). APBI should be recommended to suitable patients to minimize the risk of secondary tumor induction and the incidence of consecutive major cardiac events.

Background: In the German Mammography Screening Program, 62% of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 38% of invasive breast cancers are associated with microcalcifications (MCs). Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsies are necessary to distinguish precancerous lesions from benign calcifications because mammographic discrimination is not possible. The aim of this study was to investigate if breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRM) could assist the evaluation of MCs and thus help reduce biopsy rates., Methods: In this IRB-approved study, 58 women (mean age 58 +/- 24 years) with 59 suspicious MC clusters in the MG were eligible for this prospective single-center trial. Additional breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted before biopsy., Results: The breast MRI showed a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 84%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 91% for the differentiation between benign and malignant in these 59 MCs found with MG. Breast MRI in addition to MG could increase the PPV from 36% to 75% compared to MG alone. The MRI examination led to nine additional suspicious classified lesions in the study cohort. A total of 55% (5/9) of them turned out to be malignant. A total of 32 of 59 (54 %) women with suspicious MCs and benign histology were classified as non-suspicious by MRI., Conclusion: An additionally performed breast MRI could have increased the diagnostic reliability in the assessment of MCs. Further, in our small cohort, a considerable number of malignant lesions without mammographically visible MCs were revealed.

Analysis of circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) is a suitable tool for detecting somatic mutations for the purpose of making decisions on treatment, monitoring treatment response, and predicting survival. High-throughput techniques for ccfDNA extraction are essential to implementing ccfDNA testing in the clinical setting. We set out to compare two automated techniques with regard to hands-on time, ccfDNA output and integrity, and circulating mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). CcfDNA was isolated using the EZ1&2 ccfDNA field test kit (EZ2 kit, QIAGEN) and the Maxwell RSC ccfDNA plasma kit (Maxwell kit, Promega). DNA was extracted from plasma of 30 breast cancer patients enrolled in the iMODE-B (#325&#95;19B; 12.10.2020) study. Real-time PCR, fluorescence-based detection and automated electrophoresis were used to assess ccfDNA concentrations. The ccfDNA yield was significantly higher when extracted with the EZ2 kit. The EZ2 kit enabled the isolation of a higher proportion of short fragments and a lower proportion of long fragments, resulting in lower DNA integrity. Significantly lower mtDNA quantities were detected in the Maxwell eluate than in the EZ2 eluate. Thus, decisions on which extraction method to use should proceed on the basis of the required input for downstream applications, the anticipated fragment size and minimum hands-on time., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Cell-in-cell (CIC) structures in breast cancer have so far been studied in a small inhomogeneous patient population, suggesting the prognostic importance of CIC. In the present study, we focused on CIC in early hormone-sensitive breast cancer. With in vitro co-culture experiments, we compared the homotypic phagocytic capacity of two breast cancer cell lines to that of primary human fibroblasts. Afterward, we studied 601 tissue specimens from 147 patients participating in an institutional accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) phase II trial. Both breast cancer cell lines performed non-professional phagocytosis at a higher rate than primary human fibroblasts. In this study cohort, 93.2% of the patients had T1 tumours, and 6.8% had T2 tumours. CIC was found in 61.2% of the patients, with a CIC rate ranging from <1/mm 2 to 556.5/mm 2 with a mean of 30.9/mm 2 ± 68.4/mm 2 . CIC structures were prognostically favourable for local recurrence-free survival and disease-free survival. Regarding metastasis-free survival, CIC-positive patients had an unfavourable prognosis. Subgroup analysis indicated a correlation between a high proliferation index and high CIC rates. CIC had the highest prognostic value in young breast cancer patients ( p = 0.004). With this study, we provide further evidence of CIC as a prognostic marker in breast cancer.

Background/aim: Smaller, earlier-stage breast tumors are being found in breast cancer screening, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the gold standard when chemotherapy is indicated. Precise marking and localization of the tumor are thus becoming increasingly important. Wire-free localization techniques are under investigation in order to reduce presurgical radiography, pain, the risk of wire dislocation, and allow scheduling flexibility for patients and surgery departments., Patients and Methods: This single-center observational study from June 2020 to October 2021 included 15 patients with mammographically or sonographically detected nonpalpable breast lesions. Radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags were placed preoperatively under ultrasound or radiologic guidance to localize lesions for planned surgery. All patients underwent breast conservation surgery, including one bilateral and one targeted axillary dissection., Results: Histology identified two benign and 13 malignant lesions, including three ductal carcinomas in situ and 11 invasive breast cancers. Placement, control radiography, and handling of the RFID tag were feasible in everyday routine for different radiologists and surgeons and managed cost-effectively. All of the RFID tags were found in the specimen radiographs., Conclusion: The feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this non-wire localization method were demonstrated in this rather small cohort of patients. Further studies including larger numbers of patients are needed to confirm the method's accuracy., (Copyright © 2022, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

In order to evaluate the risk for radiation-associated symptomatic pneumonitis in a prospective external beam accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) trial, between 2011 and 2021, 170 patients with early stage breast cancer were enclosed in the trial. Patients were eligible for study participation if they had a histologically confirmed breast cancer or an exclusive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a tumor size ≤3 cm, free safety margins ≥2 mm, no involved axillary lymph nodes, tumor bed clips, and were ≥50 years old. Patients received APBI with 38 Gy with 10 fractions in 10 consecutive working days. The trial was registered at the German Clinical Trials Registry, DRKS-ID: DRKS00004417. Median follow-up was 56 (1−129) months. Ipsilateral lung MLD, V20, and V30 were 4.3 ± 1.4 Gy, 3.0 ± 2.0%, and 1.0 ± 1.0%, respectively. Radiogenic pneumonitis grade 2 appeared in 1/170 (0.6%) patients two months after radiotherapy. Ipsilateral MLD, V20, and V30 were 6.1 Gy, 7, and 3% in this patient. Additionally, individual radiosensitivity was increased in this specific patient. Compared to WBI, APBI leads to lower lung doses. Using APBI, the risk of symptomatic radiogenic pneumonitis is very low and may be limited, with an ipsilateral V20 < 3% to very exceptional cases associated with innate risk factors with an increased radiation susceptibility.

Aim This update of the interdisciplinary S3 guideline on the Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Cervical Cancer (AWMF Registry No. 032/033OL) was published in March 2021. This updated guideline was funded by German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe) as part of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The guideline was coordinated by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics ( Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe , DGGG) and the Working Group on Gynecological Oncology ( Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie , AGO) of the German Cancer Society ( Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft , DKG). Method The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2014 was based on an appraisal of the available evidence using the criteria of evidence-based medicine, adaptations of existing evidence-based national and international guidelines or - if evidence was lacking - on a consensus of the specialists involved in compiling the update. After an initial review of the current literature was carried out according to a prescribed algorithm, several areas were identified which, in contrast to the predecessor version from September 2014, required new recommendations or statements which took account of more recently published literature and the appraisal of the new evidence. Recommendations The short version of this guideline consists of recommendations and statements on the epidemiology, screening, diagnostic workup and therapy of patients with cervical cancer. The most important new aspects included in this updated guideline include the newly published FIGO classification of 2018, the radical open surgery approach for cervical cancers up to FIGO stage IB1, and use of the sentinel lymph node technique for tumors ≤ 2 cm. Other changes include the use of PET-CT, new options in radiotherapy (e.g., intensity-modulated radiotherapy, image-guided adaptive brachytherapy), and drug therapies to treat recurrence or metastasis., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt The conflicts of interest of all the authors are listed in the long German-language version of the guideline report./Die Interessenkonflikte der Autoren sind im Leitlinienreport aufgelistet., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background/aims: Macromastia can cause physical and psychological problems. Conservative treatments such as physiotherapy and painkillers lead to substantial long-term costs, without any proven medical benefit. In contrast, surgical treatment with reduction mammoplasty leads to improvements in nearly all respects. This study analyzed the costs of reduction mammoplasty and calculated an incremental cost-utility ratio for the treatment., Patients and Methods: The data on 76 patients who underwent reduction mammoplasty between 2008 and 2016 were collected using a two-part questionnaire (preoperative and postoperative) as well as the patients' files. Topics examined besides demographic data included physician visits, medical imaging, integrative medical procedures, remedial procedures, rehabilitation and convalescent measures, drug intake, medical aids, exercise activity, and sick leave days before and after surgery. The data were used to calculate costs per year after surgical treatment for symptomatic macromastia. Costs of surgery, including the process of obtaining insurance reimbursement and postoperative complications, were taken into account to calculate the one-time costs of reduction mammoplasty., Results: The patients' quality of life and satisfaction with the breasts improve after surgery. The one-time costs of reduction mammoplasty per patient amount to EUR 5,885, and the annual costs after surgery are EUR 200. The incremental cost-utility ratio for surgical treatments shows a saving of EUR 380 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained., Conclusions: These results show that reduction mammoplasty is a treatment that not only improves a patient's quality of life but also saves money in the longer term in comparison with expensive and ineffective conservative treatment for macromastia., Competing Interests: M.P.L., A.B.-B., C.P., A.A., R.E.H., M.W.B., and S.M.J.: no conflicts of interest. C.C.H.: received honoraria from Roche and Novartis., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: Mammographic density (MD) is one of the strongest risk factors for breast cancer (BC). However, the influence of MD on the BC prognosis is unclear. The objective of this study was therefore to investigate whether percentage MD (PMD) is associated with a difference in disease-free or overall survival in primary BC patients., Methods: A total of 2525 patients with primary, metastasis-free BC were followed up retrospectively for this analysis. For all patients, PMD was evaluated by two readers using a semi-automated method. The association between PMD and prognosis was evaluated using Cox regression models with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) as the outcome, and the following adjustments: age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, body mass index, tumor stage, grading, lymph node status, hormone receptor and HER2 status., Results: After median observation periods of 9.5 and 10.0 years, no influence of PMD on DFS (p = 0.46, likelihood ratio test (LRT)) or OS (p = 0.22, LRT), respectively, was found. In the initial unadjusted analysis higher PMD was associated with longer DFS and OS. The effect of PMD on DFS and OS disappeared after adjustment for age and was caused by the underlying age effect., Conclusions: Although MD is one of the strongest independent risk factors for BC, in our collective PMD is not associated with disease-free and overall survival in patients with BC., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Peter A. Fasching reports research grants from Novartis and BioNTech and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, AstraZeneca, Puma, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Myelo Therapeutics. Carolin C. Hack reports personal fees from Roche and Novartis. Julius Emons reports personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. Arndt Hartmann has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbvie, Jansen-Cilag, Diaceutics, Cepheid, Lilly, Agilent, and Ipsen. Ramona Erber has received honoraria from Roche, Eisai, Pfizer, and Novartis and travel grants from BioNTech. The institution of Arndt Hartmann and Ramona Erber conducts research for AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen-Cilag, NanoString Technologies, Novartis, Cepheid, and BioNTech. All the other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background More and more information about complementary and integrative medicine is becoming available, especially among cancer patients. However, little is known about the use of herbal medicine by patients with gynecologic cancers. This study aimed to assess the use of herbal products by gynecologic cancer patients compared with healthy controls. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department for Gynecology and Obstetrics of Erlangen University Hospital and included 201 patients with gynecologic cancer and 212 healthy controls. Use of herbal medicines was evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. Medical information on cancer patients was collected from hospital records. Group comparisons were done using a logistic regression model. Risk ratios were assessed using a Poisson regression model. Results Gynecologic cancer patients used herbal medicine significantly less often than healthy persons. 69% of gynecologic cancer patients and 81% of healthy participants reported using herbal products. 40% of cancer patients and 56% of healthy persons reported using plants for medicinal purposes. Motives of cancer patients for using herbal medicine included treatment of cancer-related symptoms. The major source of information for both groups was family and friends. Conclusions Although herbal medicine was used less by patients with gynecologic cancer, herbal products were used by both cancer patients and healthy individuals. To provide cancer patients with optimal therapy, oncologists should be informed about the herbal products used by their patients as this will allow them to take their patients' self-medication with herbal medicine into account. Counseling by oncologists on the use of herbal medicine should be encouraged., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest AKT received a research grant from Phytolab GmbH & Co KG. CCH has received honoraria from Roche and Novartis. PAF reports personal fees from Novartis, grants from BioNtech, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Pierre Fabre and personal fees from Seattle Genetics. All of the other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (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/ ).)

Introduction: Oncological second opinions are becoming increasingly important in the era of complex treatments and established certified cancer centers. Oncological guidelines with the highest levels of evidence are available, but these can only be effective to the extent that they are implemented. Therefore, we analyzed the effects of second opinions with regard to their agreement with first opinions and conformity with guidelines., Methods: In 164 patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer or gynecological malignancy who requested a second opinion, the first and second opinions, established at the interdisciplinary tumor conference, and conformity with the guidelines were evaluated., Results: The first opinion was not in agreement with the guidelines in 34.8% (15.2% diagnosis, 12.8% surgical therapy, 13.4% systemic therapy, and 5.5% radiotherapy), and the recommendations were optimized in the second opinion in 56.7% (28.7% diagnosis, 15.9% surgical therapy, 30.5% systemic therapy, and 8.5% radiotherapy)., Conclusions: Oncological second opinions showed significant effects and one-third of first opinions were not in conformity with the guidelines. In a significant proportion of cases, the existing treatment plan was changed or supplemented to allow modern and individualized treatment approaches., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Purpose: In breast cancer, a pathological complete response (pCR) has been described as generally resulting in a favorable prognosis. However, there are subgroups, such as patients with a mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 , in which the effect of pCR on the prognosis is suspected to be weaker. Patients with a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer may therefore react differently in relation to pCR and prognosis, and this is investigated in this study., Patients and Methods: Breast cancer patients were identified from a clinical breast cancer registry. The study subjects had been treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 2001 to 2018 and their pathological and clinical information as well as medical family history were available. They were considered to have a positive family history if they had at least 1 first-degree relative with breast and/or ovarian cancer. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to study the association between family history, pCR (ypT0; ypN0), and disease-free survival (DFS)., Results: Of 1,480 patients, 228 (15.4%) had a positive family history. The pCR rates were 24.9% in all patients, and 24.4% and 27.6% in those without/with a family history, respectively. Family history was not associated with a higher pCR rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.76; p = 0.27) or a different disease-free survival (DFS; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% CI 0.88-1.52; p = 0.30). pCR did not affect the prognosis differently in relation to family history., Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, family history was not associated with pCR and DFS. pCR improved survival, independently of family history., Competing Interests: M.P.L. reports personal fees from Pfizer, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Hexal, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Eisai, medac, and Lilly. C.C.H. reports personal fees from Roche. N.N. reports personal fees from Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Teva. A. Hartmann reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dome, Novartis, AstraZeneca, NanoString, BioNTech, and Janssen-Cilag. P.A.F. reports research grants from Novartis and BioNTech and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, TEVA, AstraZeneca, Puma, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Myelo Therapeutics. P.G. reports personal fees from Novartis, Roche, and PharmaMar. All the other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Aims The aim of this official guideline published and coordinated by the German Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) in cooperation with the Austrian Society for Gynaecology and Obstetrics (OEGGG) and the Swiss Society for Gynaecology and Obstetrics (SGGG) was to provide consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis based on an evaluation of the relevant literature. Methods This S2k guideline represents the structured consensus of a representative panel of experts with different professional backgrounds commissioned by the Guideline Committee of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG. Recommendations Recommendations on the epidemiology, aetiology, classification, symptomatology, diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis are given and special situations are discussed., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt The conflicts of interests of the authors are listed in the long version of the guideline./Die Interessenkonflikte der Autoren sind in der Langfassung der Leitlinie aufgelistet., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Increasing numbers of breast cancer survivors have led to a growing demand for integrative medicine. When patients have completed treatments associated with severe side effects, attention turns to reducing psychological symptoms, coping behavior, and self-care. The aim of this study was to assess patient-reported benefits in relation to active participation, mind-body stabilization, and coping strategies in breast cancer patients receiving integrative medicine., Methods: In a cross-sectional study, health counseling and treatment provided by a standardized integrative medicine consultancy service at the University Breast Center of Franconia were evaluated in 75 breast cancer patients over a 15-month period. At the baseline, the patients answered a questionnaire on their medical history, symptoms, and the treatment goals they were hoping to achieve with integrative medicine. Patient-reported outcomes relative to active participation, mind-body stabilization, and coping strategies were analyzed., Results: A large majority of the patients had previous experience with integrative medicine (91%). Most reported that they achieved their treatment goals with integrative medicine. Ninety-one percent achieved active participation in cancer treatment, 90% mind-body stabilization, and 79% improvement in coping strategies. Besides active participation, which was greatest in patients with stable disease, the success of integrative therapy was independent of age, concomitant diseases, previous integrative medicine experience, treatment state, and systemic cancer therapy., Conclusion: Breast cancer patients benefit from the counseling and treatment provided with integrative medicine in mind-body stabilization and coping with cancer. Active participation in cancer treatment is important for the patients. Integrative treatment services should form part of routine patient care.

Background: Risk factors for ipsilateral breast cancer tumor recurrence (IBTR) are well established and include grading, nodal status, and receptor status. Little is known about the influence of the local distance between the primary tumor and recurrences on changes in tumor characteristics and prognosis., Methods: In a retrospective setting, we analyzed primary breast cancers and their recurrences. Localizations of primary and recurrent breast cancer were recorded to calculate the relative distance in pixels. Analysis was performed regarding tumor characteristics, relative distance between both, and their impact on breast cancer prognosis., Results: In a cohort of 142 patients with ipsilateral recurrence, no statistically significant difference could be shown in the change in tumor characteristics depending on distance. Progesterone receptor (PR) and estrogene receptor (ER) status changed in 22.7% and 14.9% of cases, respectively. human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, HER2) status changed in 18.3% of cases. Survival was in accordance with the literature, with luminal-A-like tumors as best and triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) as worst prognosis. With a threshold of 162 pixels, the survival was significantly better in the group with shorter distance., Conclusion: Change in tumor characteristics from primary breast cancer to recurrence occurs more often in PR than ER. In contrast to other work, in this dataset, recurrences with a larger distance to the primary tumor had a worse prognosis in univariate analysis. A Cox model might indicate the possibility that this influence is independent of other risk factors.

The immunosuppressive human leukocyte antigens HLA-G and HLA-F are expressed on trophoblast and malignant cells. Four membrane-bound and three soluble HLA-G protein isoforms have been described, which have different immunosuppressive potentials. HLA-F has three transcript variants, resulting in three different protein isoforms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive value of HLA-G and HLA-F protein isoform expression patterns in patients with breast cancer. Core biopsies were taken at diagnosis in patients with HER2+ (n = 28), luminal B-like (n = 49) and triple-negative (n = 38) breast cancers who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Expression levels of HLA-F and -G were correlated with the pathological complete response (pCR). Protein expression was determined by Western blot analysis, using two antibodies for each HLA, specific for different isoforms. The protein expression of HLA isoforms did not significantly differ between breast cancer subtypes. However, some initial indications were found for an association between the soluble HLA-G6 protein isoform and pCR in HER2+ breast cancer. The study provides preliminary evidence for the evaluation of HLA-G isoform expression, in particular HLA-G6, as a possible new marker for pCR in HER2+ breast cancer.

We describe a method for quantifying the contractile forces that tumor spheroids collectively exert on highly nonlinear three-dimensional collagen networks. While three-dimensional traction force microscopy for single cells in a nonlinear matrix is computationally complex due to the variable cell shape, here we exploit the spherical symmetry of tumor spheroids to derive a scale-invariant relationship between spheroid contractility and the surrounding matrix deformations. This relationship allows us to directly translate the magnitude of matrix deformations to the total contractility of arbitrarily sized spheroids. We show that our method is accurate up to strains of 50% and remains valid even for irregularly shaped tissue samples when considering only the deformations in the far field. Finally, we demonstrate that collective forces of tumor spheroids reflect the contractility of individual cells for up to 1 hr after seeding, while collective forces on longer timescales are guided by mechanical feedback from the extracellular matrix., Competing Interests: CM, TG, PS, DB, NG, RG, JS, CH, MB, ME, RS, GO, BF No competing interests declared, (© 2020, Mark et al.)

Background: Patients with breast cancer (BC) show strong interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), particularly for adverse effects of adjuvant endocrine treatment - e.g., with letrozole. Letrozole often induces myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, with potential noncompliance and treatment termination. This analysis investigated whether CAM before aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy is associated with pain development and the intensity of AI-induced musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS) during the first year of treatment., Patients and Methods: The multicenter phase IV PreFace study evaluated letrozole therapy in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive patients with early BC. Patients were asked about CAM use before, 6 months after, and 12 months after treatment started. They recorded pain every month for 1 year in a diary including questions about pain and numeric pain rating scales. Data were analyzed for patients who provided pain information for all time points., Results: Of 1396 patients included, 901 (64.5%) had used CAM before AI treatment. Throughout the observation period, patients with CAM before AI treatment had higher pain values, for both myalgia/limb pain and arthralgia, than non-users. Pain increased significantly in both groups over time, with the largest increase during the first 6 months. No significant difference of pain increase was noted regarding CAM use., Conclusions: CAM use does not prevent or improve the development of AIMSS. Pain intensity was generally greater in the CAM group. Therefore, because of the risk of non-compliance and treatment discontinuation due to the development of higher pain levels, special attention must be paid to patient education and aftercare in these patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest S·Y.B. has received honoraria from Pfizer and Novartis. W.J. has received honoraria and research grants from Novartis. A.D.H. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, and Pfizer. R.W. has received honoraria and research funds from Novartis. S.K. has received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Amgen, and AstraZeneca and funding support from Roche. C.T. has received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. M.P.L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, medac, and Eisai. P.G. has received honoraria from Novartis and financial support for symposia from Novartis, Roche, and PharmaMar. H.-C.K. has received honoraria from Carl Zeiss meditec, TEVA, Theraclion, Novartis, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Roche, and Genomic Health. D.S.-B. has received honoraria from Novartis. M.W.B.‘s institution has received research grants from Novartis. T.F. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, and Amgen. P.A.F. has received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, and Celgene. His institution conducts research for Novartis. N.N. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Novartis and Teva. All of the remaining authors have declared that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer risk is reduced by number of pregnancies and breastfeeding duration, however studies of breast changes during or after pregnancy are rare. Breast volume changes - although not linked to breast cancer risk - might be an interesting phenotype in this context for correlative studies, as changes of breast volume vary between pregnant women. Serum receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL) and its antagonist osteoprotegerin (OPG) were measured prospectively before gestational week 12, and three-dimensional breast volume assessments were performed. A linear regression model including breast volume at the start of pregnancy, RANKL, OPG, and other factors was used to predict breast volume at term. The mean breast volume was 413 mL at gestational week 12, increasing by a mean of 99 mL up to gestational week 40. In addition to body mass index and breast volume at the beginning of pregnancy, RANKL and OPG appeared to influence breast volume with a mean increase by 32 mL (P = 0.04) and a mean reduction by 27 mL (P = 0.04), respectively. Linking the RANKL/RANK/OPG pathway with breast volume changes supports further studies aiming at analysing breast changes during pregnancy with regard to breast cancer risk.

Purpose This is an official guideline, published and coordinated by the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG). Vaginal cancers are rare tumors, which is why there is very little evidence on these tumors. Knowledge about the optimal clinical management is limited. This first German S2k guideline on vaginal cancer has aimed to compile the most current expert knowledge and offer new recommendations on the appropriate treatment as well as providing pointers about individually adapted therapies with lower morbidity rates than were previously generally available. The purpose of this guideline is also to set up a register to record data on treatment data and the course of disease as a means of obtaining evidence in future. Methods The present S2k guideline was developed by members of the Vulvar und Vaginal Tumors Commission of the AGO in an independently moderated, structured, formal consensus process and the contents were agreed with the mandate holders of the participating scientific societies and organizations. Recommendations To optimize the daily care of patients with vaginal cancer: 1. Monitor the spread pattern; 2. Follow the step-by-step diagnostic workup based on initial stage at detection; 3. As part of individualized clinical therapeutic management of vaginal cancer, follow the sentinel lymph node protocol described here, where possible; 4. Participate in the register study on vaginal cancer., (© Thieme Medical Publishers.)

Background: The usefulness of clinical breast examination (CBE) in general and in breast cancer screening programs has been a matter of debate. This study investigated whether adding vision-impaired medical tactile examiners (MTEs) improves the predictiveness of CBE for suspicious lesions and analyzed the feasibility and acceptability of this approach., Methods: The prospective study included 104 patients. Physicians and MTEs performed CBEs, and mammography and ultrasound results were used as the gold standard. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated and logistic regression models were used to compare the predictive value of CBE by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and physicians and MTEs combined., Results: For CBEs by physicians alone, MTEs alone, and both combined, sensitivity was 71, 82, and 89% and specificity was 55, 45, and 35%, respectively. Using adjusted logistic regression models, the validated areas under the curve were 0.685, 0.692, and 0.710 (median bootstrapped p value (DeLong) = 0.381)., Conclusion: The predictive value for a suspicious breast lesion in CBEs performed by MTEs in patients without prior surgery was similar to that of physician-conducted CBEs. Including MTEs in the CBE procedure in breast units thus appears feasible and could be a way of utilizing their skills.

Context.—: Paget disease of the breast, in most cases, represents intraepidermal spread of ductal carcinoma in situ. Molecular subtypes of invasive carcinoma of the breast have prognostic and therapeutic significance and show characteristic distribution. Little is known about the distribution of molecular subtypes in Paget disease of the breast., Objectives.—: To examine the distribution of molecular subtypes in Paget disease of the breast and to compare them to concurrent invasive carcinoma of the breast, if present., Design.—: We examined 48 cases of Paget disease of the breast with immunohistochemistry and antibodies against estrogen and progesterone receptors, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki-67, as well as HER2 chromogenic in situ hybridization, to classify the cases into molecular subtypes. Then, we compared the results to the molecular subtypes of associated invasive carcinoma of the breast, if present., Results.—: The HER2 subtype was the most common found in Paget disease of the breast, followed by the luminal B subtype and 2 cases of the triple-negative subtype. The associated invasive carcinoma cases were most often of the luminal B subtype, followed by the HER2 subtype and the triple-negative subtype. The molecular subtype of Paget disease and invasive carcinoma was congruent in most of the cases., Conclusions.—: Molecular subtypes of invasive carcinoma of the breast can already be detected in Paget disease. The distribution of molecular subtypes of Paget disease and of Paget disease-associated invasive carcinoma differs from invasive carcinoma without associated Paget disease, with the HER2 subtype overrepresented in Paget disease and associated invasive carcinoma and the luminal and triple-negative subtypes underrepresented.

Background During cancer therapy, many patients suffer from malnutrition or vitamin deficiency. Treatment for nutrition-related deficiencies should therefore include nutritional therapy and possibly oral or intravenous substitution of micronutrients. Little information exists on multinutrient infusion therapies. The aim of this study was to develop standardized infusion protocols for integrative medicine infusions with micronutrients (IMed infusions) and to report on side effects of the treatment and patients' satisfaction with it. Methods For the IMed consultancy service, four special formulas for intravenous use were developed in cooperation with the pharmacy at Erlangen University Hospital. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2015 and January 2018 in which 45 patients with gynecological or breast cancer (BC) and IMed infusion therapy were included. Follow-up data were obtained from 20 patients using a standardized questionnaire on IMed infusions. Results A total of 280 IMed infusions were administered in the study period. The majority of the patients received an IMed regeneration infusion (78%). The majority of the patients had BC and were receiving chemotherapy. Most patients reported a high or very high level of satisfaction with the organization (60%), general treatment (65%) and counseling (85%). Subjective improvement in their disease-related and therapy-induced symptoms, such as fatigue, polyneuropathy and physical efficiency, was reported by 70% of the patients, while 75% reported a subjective increase in quality of life. Side effects were rare and minor. Conclusions Therapy with IMed infusions in women with BC or gynecological cancer requires the same standards set for drug therapy. Although vitamins represent dietary supplements, appropriate assessment of the patient's medical history is needed and patients must receive appropriate information. For this purpose, standardized processes, as in the context of an IMed consultancy service, are helpful.

Purpose: Although the demand from patients for integrative medicine is increasing, complementary medicine services are still quite heterogeneous and have not been incorporated into clinical routine. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate improvements in side effects and quality of life associated with a hospital-based integrative medicine program in the modern breast cancer patient care setting., Methods: In a cross-sectional study, integrative health counseling and treatment were evaluated in women with breast cancer. Over a 15-month period, data for 75 patients from an integrative medicine consultancy service with standardized operating procedures were collected at the University Breast Center for Franconia. At baseline, the patients answered a questionnaire on their medical history, symptoms, and the treatment goals they were hoping to achieve with integrative medicine. In the follow-up, patient-reported outcomes related to side effects of conventional cancer treatment and patients' quality of life were analyzed., Results: Among 60 patients with the therapy goal of reducing the side effects of conventional treatment, 46 (76.7%) were successful. Among 57 patients hoping to improve disease-related quality of life, 46 (82%) reported success. Whereas patients with metastatic disease achieved a reduction in the side effects of conventional therapy, quality-of-life improvements were predominantly achieved by patients with a good treatment prognosis., Conclusions: Breast cancer patients benefit from the counseling and treatment provided with integrative medicine in all phases of tumor disease. Integrative treatment services should be included as part of patient care in clinical routine work to offer patients the maximum quality of care and safety with complementary therapies.

Background: In women with early breast cancer, a pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is reported to be associated with an improvement of the survival. The aim of this survey among physicians was to investigate whether the probability of achieving pCR in patients with a hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease encourages physicians to recommend neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Methods: The study was conducted via an online survey that was sent to 493 physicians, who were either known as members of national guideline committees, heads of breast cancer centers, being high recruiters in clinical trials or leading a private practice. Participants were asked about a specific case that should resemble patients for whom it is unclear, whether they should be treated with chemotherapy., Results: 113 (24.5%) physicians participated at the survey, out of which 96.5% had a work experience of more than 10 years and 94.7% were board certified in their specialty. A total of 84.1% would consider pCR for a decision concerning neoadjuvant chemotherapy. With regard to the pCR probability, 2.7 and 10.6% of the participants demanded at least a pCR rate of 5 and 10%, respectively, while 25.7% were satisfied with 20% probability, and another 25.7% with a pCR rate of 30%., Conclusions: The vast majority of the long-term experienced physicians would embrace the implementation of a further method such as the prediction of pCR probability in clinical routine to support decision making regarding the necessity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The cut-off of around 30% pCR probability seems to be a realizable rate to distinguish patient groups.

Over the last two decades genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 has become standard of care for women and men who are at familial risk for breast or ovarian cancer. Currently, genetic testing more often also includes so-called panel genes, which are assumed to be moderate-risk genes for breast cancer. Recently, new large-scale studies provided more information about the risk estimation of those genes. The utilization of information on panel genes with regard to their association with the individual breast cancer risk might become part of future clinical practice. Furthermore, large efforts have been made to understand the influence of common genetic variants with a low impact on breast cancer risk. For this purpose, almost 450 000 individuals have been genotyped for almost 500 000 genetic variants in the OncoArray project. Based on first results it can be assumed that - together with previously identified common variants - more than 170 breast cancer risk single nucleotide polymorphisms can explain up to 18% of familial breast cancer risk. The knowledge about genetic and non-genetic risk factors and its implementation in clinical practice could especially be of use for individualized prevention. This includes an individualized risk prediction as well as the individualized selection of screening methods regarding imaging and possible lifestyle interventions. The aim of this review is to summarize the most recent developments in this area and to provide an overview on breast cancer risk genes, risk prediction models and their utilization for the individual patient.