Search

Purpose: The randomized GeparOla trial reported comparable pathological complete response (pCR) rates with neoadjuvant containing olaparib vs. carboplatin treatment. Here, we evaluate the association between functional homologous repair deficiency (HRD) by RAD51 foci and pCR, and the potential of improving patient selection by combining RAD51 and stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs)., Patients and Methods: This is a post-hoc blinded, biomarker analysis from the randomized GeparOla trial. Patients with early-stage HER2-negative breast cancer and HRD assessed by Myriad myChoice or BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation were randomized 1:1 to receive i) paclitaxel plus olaparib or ii) paclitaxel plus carboplatin, both followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide. Functional HRD was predefined as a RAD51 score ≤10% (RAD51-low)., Results: Overall, 90/97 (92.8%) samples were evaluable for RAD51 testing and 72/90 (80.0%) were RAD51-low. The pCR rate in patients with RAD51-low tumors was 66.7% (48/72), while it decreased to 22.2% (4/18) in those with RAD51-high. In the multivariable model including clinicopathological factors and treatment, the RAD51 score remained significantly associated with pCR (OR=12.03, 95%CI 2.60-55.73, p=0.002). Patients with RAD51-low and high sTILs in their tumors achieved a pCR rate of 75.0% (27/36). Similar results were observed for olaparib or carboplatin. In the exploratory DFS analysis, no differences were observed between RAD51 groups (high vs. low: HR=0.85, 95% CI 0.25-2.97)., Conclusions: In a pre-selected population with HRD according to a genetic test, RAD51 testing identifies patients with different pCR rates under PARPi or platinum-based therapies. Future biomarker-driven studies should consider this information to refine stratification factors and to improve patient selection.

Background: Identification of biomarkers to optimize treatment strategies for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is crucial. This study presents the development and validation of TNBC-DX, a novel test aimed at predicting both short- and long-term outcomes in early-stage TNBC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between TNBC-DX and efficacy outcomes [pathologic complete response (pCR), distant disease-free survival (DDFS) or event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS)] in the validation cohorts., Methods: Information from 1259 patients with early-stage TNBC (SCAN-B, CALGB-40603, and BrighTNess) was used to establish the TNBC-DX scores. Independent validation of TNBC-DX was carried out in three studies: (i) WSG-ADAPT-TN; (ii) MMJ-CAR-2014-01; and (iii) NeoPACT, including 527 patients with stage I-III TNBC undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In WSG-ADAPT-TN, patients were randomized to receive nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or carboplatin. In MMJ-CAR-2014-01, patients received carboplatin plus docetaxel. In NeoPACT, patients received carboplatin plus docetaxel and pembrolizumab., Results: TNBC-DX test was created incorporating the 10-gene Core Immune Gene module, the 4-gene tumor cell proliferation signature, tumor size, and nodal staging. In the two independent validation cohorts without pembrolizumab, the TNBC-DX pCR score was significantly associated with pCR after adjustment for clinicopathological variables and treatment regimen [odds ratio per 10-unit increment 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.52, P < 0.001]. pCR rates for the TNBC-DX pCR-high, pCR-medium, and pCR-low categories were 56.3%, 53.6%, and 22.5% respectively (odds ratio for pCR-high versus pCR-low 3.48, 95% CI 1.72-7.15, P < 0.001). In addition, the TNBC-DX risk score was significantly associated with DDFS [hazard ratio (HR) high-risk versus low-risk 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.41, P < 0.001] and OS (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.35, P < 0.001). In the validation cohort with pembrolizumab, the TNBC-DX scores were significantly associated with pCR, EFS, and OS., Conclusions: TNBC-DX predicts pCR to neoadjuvant taxane-carboplatin in stage I-III TNBC and helps to forecast the patient's long-term survival in the absence of neoadjuvant anthracycline-cyclophosphamide, and independent of pembrolizumab use., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Increased levels of physical activity are associated with a reduction of breast cancer mortality, especially in postmenopausal women with positive hormone receptor status. So far, previous observational case-control and cohort studies have focused on associations between overall leisure time physical activity and survival of women with breast cancer in general., Methods: In this multicenter prospective cohort study, conducted in Germany between 30th August 2012 to 29th December 2017, we investigated general physical activity in a homogenous sample of n = 1440 postmenopausal women with advanced (inoperable locally advanced or metastatic), hormone receptor-positive breast cancer receiving the same therapy (everolimus and exemestane). Self-reported physical activity was assessed using the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ) before and every 3 months during treatment. Participants were then classified into "active" and "insufficiently active" to screen their activity behavior the week prior to medical treatment. In addition, changes in physical activity patterns were assessed. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were performed for the activity categories to determine hazard ratios (HR). Besides progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), QoL, and fatigue were assessed every 3 months until study termination., Results: Compared to "insufficiently active" patients, "active" individuals indicated a significantly longer PFS (HR: 0.84 [0.74; 0.984], p = .0295). No significant differences were observed for changes of physical activity behavior. Patients who reported to be "active" at baseline revealed significantly fewer AEs compared to "insufficiently" active patients. In detail, both severe and non-severe AEs occurred less frequently in the "active" patients group. In line with that, QoL and fatigue were better in physical "active" patients compared to their insufficient active counterparts at the last post-baseline assessment. Participants who remained or become active indicated less AEs, a higher QoL, and reduced fatigue levels., Conclusions: Physical activity behavior prior to medical treatment might have prognostic value in patients with advanced breast cancer in terms of extending the PFS. Moreover, physical activity before and during treatment may reduce treatment-related side effects and improve patients' QoL and fatigue., Trial Registration: EUPAS9462. Registered 30th October 2012 "retrospectively registered.", (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The monarchE and NATALEE trials demonstrated the benefit of CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) therapy in adjuvant breast cancer (BC) treatment. Patient selection, based on clinical characteristics, delineated those at high (monarchE) and high/intermediate recurrence risk (NATALEE). This study employed a historical patient cohort to describe the proportion and prognosis of patients eligible for adjuvant CDK4/6i trials., Methods: Between 2009 and 2011, 3529 patients were enrolled in the adjuvant PreFace clinical trial (NCT01908556). Eligibility criteria included postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive (HRpos) BC for whom a five-year upfront therapy with letrozole was indicated. Patients were categorized into prognostic groups according to monarchE and NATALEE inclusion criteria, and their invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed., Results: Among 2891 HRpos patients, 384 (13.3 %) met the primary monarchE inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 261) qualified due to having ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes. For NATALEE, 915 out of 2886 patients (31.7 %) met the eligibility criteria, with 126 patients (13.7 %) being node-negative. Patients from monarchE with ≥ 4 positive lymph nodes and NATALEE with stage III BC exhibited the poorest prognosis (3-year iDFS rate 0.87). Patients ineligible for the trials demonstrated prognoses similar to the most favorable patient groups within the eligibility criteria., Conclusion: Patient populations eligible for monarchE and NATALEE trials differed. Nearly a third of the postmenopausal HRpos population, previously under upfront letrozole treatment, met the NATALEE prognostic eligibility criteria. As certain eligible groups had a prognosis similar to non-eligible patients, it might be interesting to explore additional patient groups for CDK4/6i therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: P.A.F. reports grants from Biontech and Cepheid, personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Roche, Hexal, Agendia, Gilead. C.C.H. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Gilead and MSD, and travel grants from Daiichi-Sankyo. N.N. is an employee of Novartis Pharma GmbH. 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. 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 and Zuellig, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Zuellig, and Stemline, participated in data safety monitoring 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, Celgene and Johnson&Johnson. A.S. reported grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Celgene, 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, GSK, 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 AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead, Pierre Fabre, iMED Institut. Consultancy honoraria: Roche, Pierre Fabre, PINK, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, Stemline. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech, AstraZeneca. Travel grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead. C.R. received honoraria from MSD and AstraZeneca, travel expenses from the Swiss Society of Senology and the Swiss Society of Gynecology. P.D. received honoraria from MSD, Pierre Fabre, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche. E.B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, B. 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, Diachii Sankyo, AstraZeneca and MSD. All of the remaining authors have declared that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Systemic therapy plays a major part in the cure of patients with early breast cancer (eBC). However, personalized treatment concepts are required to avoid potentially harmful overtreatment. Biomarkers are pivotal for individualized therapy. The Notch signalling pathway is widely considered as a suitable prognostic or predictive marker in eBC. This study aimed primarily at assessing the relationship between NOTCH1 mRNA expression levels and histopathological features of breast cancer tumors, as well as clinical characteristics of the correspondent eBC patients. As a secondary aim, we investigated the prognostic and predictive value of NOTCH1 by assessing possible associations between NOTCH1 mRNA expression and recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival after five years of observation., Patients and Methods: The relative NOTCH1 mRNA expression was determined in 414 tumour samples, using quantitative PCR in a prospective, multicenter cohort (Prognostic Assessment in Routine Application (PiA), 2009-2011, NCT01592825) of 1,270 female eBC patients., Results: High NOTCH1 mRNA expression was detected in one-third of the tumours and was associated with negative hormone receptor status and high uPA/PAI-1 status. In addition, high NOTCH1 mRNA expression was found to be associated with more RFI related events (adjusted hazard ratio 2.1, 95% CI 1.077-4.118). Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and had high NOTCH1 mRNA expression in the tumour (n = 86) were three times more likely to have an RFI event (adjusted hazard ratio 3.1, 95% CI 1.321-7.245, p = 0.009)., Conclusion: In this cohort, NOTCH1 mRNA expression had a prognostic and predictive impact. Tumours with high NOTCH1 mRNA expression may be less sensitive to cytotoxic treatment and downregulation of the Notch signalling pathway (e.g. by γ-secretase inhibitors) may be valuable for eBC therapy as an individualised treatment option., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: C.T. resports support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Daichi-Synkyo, Forum Sanitas, Gilead, Jörg Eickeler, Hexal, Lilly, Medupdate, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Vifor. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. All other authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Ethical approval: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Medical Faculty of the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (#214/16.12.09/11). Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

BRAWO, a real-world study, assessed the efficacy, quality of life (QoL) and safety of EVE + EXE in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) in routine clinical practice. Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2-ABC with recurrence or progression after a NSAI were included. Primary Observation parameters included the evaluation of the effectiveness of EVE + EXE. A multivariate-analysis using Cox proportional hazard model was built to identify predictors of progression. Overall, 2100 patients were enrolled (August 2012-December 2017); 2074 were evaluable for efficacy and safety analyses. Majority of patients (60.6%) received EVE + EXE as first (28.7%) or second-line (31.9%) therapy. Visceral metastases were present in 54.1% patients. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) reported as 6.6 months (95%CI: 6.3-7.0). Multivariate-analysis in a subset of patients (n = 1837) found higher body mass index (BMI) and non-visceral metastases to be independent predictors of favorable PFS. Patients with a BMI of 20 to <25 had a mPFS of 6.0 (95%CI: 5.4-6.4) and those with a BMI ≥30 had mPFS of 8.5 (95%CI: 6.9-9.9). 41.2% patients achieved stable disease and 7.3% partial response. No major changes were observed QoL; 86.4% patients received stomatitis prophylaxis and 41.4% experienced EVE related AEs of stomatitis, mainly low grade. AEs occurred in 91.2% of patients, of which stomatitis (42.6%) and fatigue (19.8%) were most frequent. The BRAWO study provides real-world evidence of efficacy and safety of EVE + EXE in patients with HR+, HER2- ABC. A high BMI and the absence of visceral metastases were independent predictors of PFS in this cohort of patients., (© 2024 UICC.)

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/).)

Summary The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer, first published in April 2018, was reviewed in its entirety between April 2020 and January 2022 and updated. The review was carried out at the request of German Cancer Aid as part of the Oncology Guidelines Program and the lead coordinators were the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Gynecology Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Cancer Aid (DKH). The guideline update was based on a systematic search and assessment of the literature published between 2016 and 2020. All statements, recommendations and background texts were reviewed and either confirmed or amended. New statements and recommendations were included where necessary. Aim The use of evidence-based risk-adapted therapies to treat low-risk women with endometrial cancer prevents unnecessarily radical surgery and avoids non-beneficial adjuvant radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimum level of radical surgery and indicates whether chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiation therapy is necessary. This should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer and the quality indicators based on the guideline aim to provide the basis for the work of certified gynecological cancer centers. Methods The guideline was first compiled in 2018 in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines and was updated in 2022. The update included an adaptation of the source guidelines identified using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). The update also used evidence reviews which were created based on selected literature obtained from systematic searches in selected literature databases using the PICO process. The Clinical Guidelines Service Group was tasked with carrying out a systematic search and assessment of the literature. Their results were used by interdisciplinary working groups as a basis for developing suggestions for recommendations and statements which were then modified during structured online consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI process to achieve a consensus. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline provides recommendations on the treatment of precancerous lesions and early-stage endometrial cancer, surgical treatment, radiotherapy and drug-based therapy, follow-up, recurrence, and metastasis of endometrial cancer as well as the state of psycho-oncological care, palliative care, patient education, rehabilitative and physiotherapeutic care., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt The conflicts of interest of the authors are listed in the long German-language version of the guideline. Die Interessenkonflikte der Autoren sind in der Langfassung der Leitlinie aufgelistet., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Summary The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer, first published in April 2018, was reviewed in its entirety between April 2020 and January 2022 and updated. The review was carried out at the request of German Cancer Aid as part of the Oncology Guidelines Program and the lead coordinators were the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Gynecology Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Cancer Aid (DKH). The guideline update was based on a systematic search and assessment of the literature published between 2016 and 2020. All statements, recommendations and background texts were reviewed and either confirmed or amended. New statements and recommendations were included where necessary. Aim The use of evidence-based risk-adapted therapies to treat women with endometrial cancer of low risk prevents unnecessarily radical surgery and avoids non-beneficial adjuvant radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimum level of radical surgery and indicates whether chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiation therapy is necessary. This should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer and the quality indicators based on the guideline aim to provide the basis for the work of certified gynecological cancer centers. Methods The guideline was first compiled in 2018 in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines and was updated in 2022. The update included an adaptation of the source guidelines identified using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). The update also used evidence reviews which were created based on selected literature obtained from systematic searches in selected literature databases using the PICO process. The Clinical Guidelines Service Group was tasked with carrying out a systematic search and assessment of the literature. Their results were used by interdisciplinary working groups as a basis for developing suggestions for recommendations and statements which were then modified during structured online consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI process to achieve a consensus. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline provides recommendations on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and hereditary factors. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer and the risk factors for developing endometrial cancer are presented. The options for screening and the methods used to diagnose endometrial cancer are outlined. Recommendations are given for the prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of hereditary forms of endometrial cancer. The use of geriatric assessment is considered and existing structures of care are presented., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt The conflicts of interest of the authors are listed in the long German-language version of the guideline./Die Interessenkonflikte der Autoren sind in der Langfassung der Leitlinie aufgelistet., (© Thieme Medical Publishers.)

Background: In high-risk hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) early breast cancer (EBC), nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel showed promising efficacy versus solvent-based (sb)-paclitaxel in neoadjuvant trials; however, optimal patient and therapy selection remains a topic of ongoing research. Here, we investigate the potential of Oncotype DX® recurrence score (RS) and endocrine therapy (ET) response (low post-endocrine Ki67) for therapy selection., Patients and Methods: Within the WSG-ADAPT trial (NCT01779206), high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC patients were randomized to (neo)adjuvant 4× sb-paclitaxel 175 mg/m 2 q2w or 8× nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 q1w, followed by 4× epirubicin + cyclophosphamide (90 mg + 600 mg) q2w; inclusion criteria: (i) cN0-1, RS 12-25, and post-ET Ki67 >10%; (ii) cN0-1 with RS >25. Patients with cN2-3 or (G3, baseline Ki67 ≥40%, and tumor size >1 cm) were allowed to be included without RS and/or ET response testing. Associations of key factors with pathological complete response (pCR) (primary) and survival (secondary) endpoints were analyzed using statistical mediation and moderation models., Results: Eight hundred and sixty-four patients received neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (n= 437) or sb-paclitaxel (n = 427); nab-paclitaxel was superior for pCR (20.8% versus 12.9%, P = 0.002). pCR was higher for RS >25 versus RS ≤25 (16.0% versus 8.4%, P = 0.021) and for ET non-response versus ET response (15.1% versus 6.0%, P = 0.027); no factors were predictive for the relative efficacy of nab-paclitaxel versus sb-paclitaxel. Patients with pCR had longer distant disease-free survival [dDFS; hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20-0.91, P = 0.024]. Despite favorable prognostic association of RS >25 versus RS ≤25 with pCR (odds ratio 3.11, 95% CI 1.71-5.63, P ≤ 0.001), higher RS was unfavorably associated with dDFS (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, P = 0.010)., Conclusions: In high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC, neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel q1w appears superior to sb-paclitaxel q2w regarding pCR. Combining RS and ET response assessment appears to select patients with highest pCR rates. The disadvantage of higher RS for dDFS is reduced in patients with pCR. These are the first results from a large neoadjuvant randomized trial supporting the use of RS to help select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk HR+/HER2- EBC., Competing Interests: Disclosure OG received consulting fees from Celgene, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen, Pierre Fabre, Gilead, and Molecular health; honoraria from Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, NanoString Technologies, and AstraZeneca; payment for expert testimony from Genomic Health; and travel support from Roche, all outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. SK received research funding from Roche and Novartis; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Genomic Health/Exact Science, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, Pfizer, pfm Medical, Roche, Somatex, and Gilead; travel support from Roche and Daiichi Sankyo; and other financial or non-financial interests for Non-Continuing Medical Education services from Somatex, Roche, Novartis, and Lilly, all outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. UN received research funding paid to institution from Agendia, Amgen, Celgene, Genomic Health, NanoString Technologies, Roche, and Sanofi; consulting fees from Genomic Health and Roche; honoraria from Agendia, Amgen, Celgene, Genomic Health, NanoString Technologies, Novartis pharma, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, and Teva; payment for expert testimony from Genomic Health; travel support from Genomic Health, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and Roche; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board at Roche, Seagen, and Exact Sciences, all outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. MB received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Teva, MSD; travel support from AstraZeneca, Celgene, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Daiichi Sankyo; and reports consulting/advisory role for AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Novartis, Puma, Roche, all outside of the submitted work. HF received honoraria from Roche and iOMEDICO (lecture); and travel support from Celgene and Amgen, all outside of the submitted work. CU received consulting fees from Tesaro, Novartis, Roche; research funding paid to institution from West German Study Group, German Breast Group, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Palleos Healthcare Services Gmbh, Pierre Fabre, AGO-Studiengruppe; travel support from German Breast Group, West German Study Group, AGO-Studiengruppe; and provided expert testimony for Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, all outside of the submitted work. BA received honoraria from Pfizer, Roche Pharma, MSD, onkowissen.de, Novartis Pharma, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Lilly, promedicis, all outside of the submitted work. RK received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics; and honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Novartis, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, and Zodiac Pharma, all paid to immediate family member and outside of the submitted work; and co-director position at West German Study Group. MG received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and travel support from Daiichi Sankyo, all outside of the submitted work. RW received consulting fees, honoraria, and travel support from Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences/Genomic Health, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Mylan, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, PumaBiotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Sanofi Genzyme, Seattle Genetics/Seagen, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte, and Viatris; and other financial or non-financial interests from FomF (Forum for medical education in Germany), Aurikamed, Clinsol, Pomme Med, all outside of the submitted work. RB is a current employee of and owns stock in Exact Sciences Corporation. HHK received honoraria for lectures from Roche Pharma, Novartis, Genomic Health, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Pfizer; and participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board at Roche Pharma, Genomic Health, and AstraZeneca, all outside of the submitted work. NH received research funding paid to institution from Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech; honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Seagen, all outside of the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Efficacy and quality of life (QoL) are key criteria for therapy selection in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In hormone receptor positive (HR +) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2 -) MBC, addition of targeted oral agents such as everolimus or a cycline-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitor (e.g., palbociclib, ribociclib, abemaciclib) to endocrine therapy substantially prolongs progression-free survival and in the case of a CDK 4/6i also overall survival. However, the prerequisite is adherence to therapy over the entire course of treatment. However, particularly with new oral drugs, adherence presents a challenge to disease management. In this context, factors influencing adherence include maintaining patients' satisfaction and early detection/management of side effects. New strategies for continuous support of oncological patients are needed. An eHealth-based platform can help to support therapy management and physician-patient interaction., Methods: PreCycle is a multicenter, randomized, phase IV trial in HR + HER2 - MBC. All patients (n = 960) receive the CDK 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib either in first (62.5%) or later line (37.5%) together with endocrine therapy (AI, fulvestrant) according to national guidelines. PreCycle evaluates and compares the time to deterioration (TTD) of QoL in patients supported by eHealth systems with substantially different functionality: CANKADO active vs. inform. CANKADO active is the fully functional CANKADO-based eHealth treatment support system. CANKADO inform is a CANKADO-based eHealth service with a personal login, documentation of daily drug intake, but no further functions. To evaluate QoL, the FACT-B questionnaire is completed at every visit. As little is known about relationships between behavior (e.g., adherence), genetic background, and drug efficacy, the trial includes both patient-reported outcome and biomarker screening for discovery of forecast models for adherence, symptoms, QoL, progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS)., Discussion: The primary objective of PreCycle is to test the hypothesis of superiority for time to deterioration (TTD) in terms of DQoL = "Deterioration of quality of life" (FACT-G scale) in patients supported by an eHealth therapy management system (CANKADO active) versus in patients merely receiving eHealth-based information (CANKADO inform). EudraCT Number: 2016-004191-22., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Phosphatidylinositide-3-kinase (PI3K) regulates proliferation and apoptosis; somatic PIK3CA-mutations may activate these processes. Aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of PIK3CA-mutations in a cohort of early stage breast cancer patients and the association to the course of disease., Patients and Methods: From an unselected cohort of 1270 breast cancer patients (PiA, Prognostic Assessment in routine application, NCT01592825) 1123 tumours were tested for the three PIK3CA hotspot-mutations H1047R, E545K, and E542K by qPCR. Primary objectives were the prevalence of somatic PIK3CA-mutations and their association to tumour characteristics. Secondary objective was the association of PIK3CA-mutations to recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival., Results: PIK3CA-mutation rate was 26.7% (300 of 1123). PIK3CA-mutations were significantly more frequent in steroid hormone-receptor (SHR)-positive HER2-negative (31.4%), and G1 and G2 tumours (32.8%). Overall, we did not observe a significant association of PIK3CA-mutations to RFI. In SHR-positive BCs with PIK3CA-mutations, a strong trend for impaired  RFI was observed (adjusted HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.958-2.807), whilst in SHR-negative BCs PIK3CA-mutations were insignificantly associated with improved RFI (adjusted HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.152-1.597). Of note, we observed a significantly detrimental prognostic impact of PIK3CA-mutations on RFI in SHR-positive, HER2-negative BCs if only aromatase inhibitors were administered as adjuvant therapy (adjusted HR 4.44, 95% CI 1.385-13.920), whilst no impact was observed in tamoxifen treated patients., Conclusion: This cohort study speficies the overall mutation rate of PIK3CA in early breast cancer. The impact of PIK3CA-mutations on RFI and OS was heterogeneous. Our results suggest that estrogen deprivation failes to be active in case of PIK3CA-mutation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are considered to have prognostic and predictive value for patients with early breast cancer. We examined 1166 breast cancer patients from a prospective, multicentre cohort (Prognostic Assessment in Routine Application (PiA), n = 1270, NCT01592825) following recommendations from the International TILs Working Group. TIL quantification was performed using predefined groups and as a continuous variable in 10% increments. The primary objective was the distribution of TILs in different breast cancer types. The second objective was the association with the recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival (OS). Stromal infiltration with more than 60% TILs appeared in 2% of hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative tumours, in 9.8% of HER2-positive tumours (any HR) and 19.4% of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs). Each 10% increment was associated with an improvement in the prognosis in HER2-positive samples (RFI, hazard ratio 0.773, 95% CI 0.587-1.017; OS, hazard ratio 0.700, 95% CI 0.523-0.937). When defining exploratory cut-offs for TILs, the use of a 30% threshold for the HR-positive and HER2-negative group, a 20% threshold for the HER2 group and a 60% threshold for the TNBC group appeared to be the most suitable. TILs bore prognostic value, especially in HER2-positive breast cancer. For clinical use, additional research on the components of immune infiltration might be reasonable.

Background: Higher density of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) at baseline has been associated with increased rates of pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). While evidence supports favorable association of pCR with survival in TNBC, an independent impact of sTILs (after adjustment for pCR) on survival is not yet established. Moreover, the impact of sTIL dynamics during NACT on pCR and survival in TNBC is unknown., Methods: The randomized WSG-ADAPT TN phase II trial compared efficacy of 12-week nab-paclitaxel with gemcitabine versus carboplatin. This preplanned translational analysis assessed impacts of sTIL measurements at baseline (sTIL-0) and after 3 weeks of chemotherapy (sTIL-3) on pCR and invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). Predictive performance of sTIL-0 and sTIL-3 for pCR was quantified by ROC analysis and logistic regression; Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox regression (with mediation analysis) were used to determine their impact on iDFS., Results: For prediction of pCR, the AUC statistics for sTIL-0 and sTIL-3 were 0.60 and 0.63, respectively, in all patients; AUC for sTIL-3 was higher in NP/G. The positive predictive value (PPV) of "lymphocyte-predominant" status (sTIL-0 ≥ 60%) at baseline was 59.3%, though only 13.0% of patients had this status. To predict non-pCR, the cut point sTIL-0 ≤ 10% yielded PPV = 69.5% while addressing 33.8% of patients. Higher sTIL levels (particularly at 3 weeks) were independently and favorably associated with better iDFS, even after adjusting for pCR. For example, the adjusted hazard ratio for 3-week sTILs ≥ 60% (vs. < 60%) was 0.48 [0.23-0.99]. Low cellularity in 3-week biopsies was the strongest individual predictor for pCR (in both therapy arms), but not for iDFS., Conclusion: The independent impact of sTILs on iDFS suggests that favorable immune response can influence key tumor biological processes for long-term survival. The results suggest that the reliability of pCR following neoadjuvant therapy as a surrogate for survival could vary among subgroups in TNBC defined by immune response or other factors. Dynamic measurements of sTILs under NACT could support immune response-guided patient selection for individualized therapy approaches for both very low levels (more effective therapies) and very high levels (de-escalation concepts)., Trial Registration: Clinical trials No: NCT01815242, retrospectively registered January 25, 2013., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To our knowledge, WSG-ADAPT-HR+/HER2- (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01779206; n = 5,625 registered) is the first trial combining the 21-gene expression assay (recurrence score [RS]) and response to 3-week preoperative endocrine therapy (ET) to guide systemic therapy in early breast cancer., Materials and Methods: Baseline and postendocrine Ki67 (Ki67 post ) were evaluated centrally. In the endocrine trial, all patients received exclusively ET: patients with pathologic regional lymph node status (pN) 0-1 (ie, 0-3 involved lymph nodes) entered control arm if RS ≤ 11 and experimental arm if RS12-25 with ET response (Ki67 post ≤ 10%). All other patients (including N0-1 RS12-25 without ET response) received dose-dense chemotherapy (CT) followed by ET in the CT trial. Primary end point of the endocrine trial was noninferiority of 5-year invasive disease-free survival (5y-iDFS) in experimental ( v control) arm; secondary end points included distant DFS, overall survival, and translational research., Results: Intention-to-treat population comprised 2,290 patients (n = 1,422 experimental v n = 868 control): 26.3% versus 34.6% premenopausal and 27.4% versus 24.0% pN1. One-sided 95% lower confidence limit of the 5y-iDFS difference was -3.3%, establishing prespecified noninferiority ( P = .05). 5y-iDFS was 92.6% (95% CI, 90.8 to 94.0) in experimental versus 93.9% (95% CI, 91.8 to 95.4) in control arm; 5-year distant DFS was 95.6% versus 96.3%, and 5-year overall survival 97.3% versus 98.0%, respectively. Differences were similar in age and nodal subgroups. In N0-1 RS12-25, outcome of ET responders (ET alone) was comparable with that of ET nonresponders (CT) for age > 50 years and superior for age ≤ 50 years. ET response was more likely with aromatase inhibitors (mostly postmenopausal) than with tamoxifen (mostly premenopausal): 78.1% versus 41.1% ( P < .001). ET response was 78.8% in RS0-11, 62.2% in RS12-25, and 32.7% in RS > 25 (n = 4,203, P < .001)., Conclusion: WSG-ADAPT-HR+/HER2- demonstrates that guiding systemic treatment by both RS and ET response is feasible in clinical routine and spares CT in pre- and postmenopausal patients with ≤ 3 involved lymph nodes.

Introduction: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is considered the most aggressive type of breast cancer (BC) with limited options for therapy. TNBC is a heterogeneous disease and tumors have been classified into TNBC subtypes using gene expression profiling to distinguish basal-like 1, basal-like 2, immunomodulatory, mesenchymal, mesenchymal stem-like, luminal androgen receptor (LAR), and one nonclassifiable group (called unstable)., Objectives: The aim of this study was to verify the clinical relevance of molecular subtyping of TNBCs to improve the individual indication of systemic therapy., Patients and Methods: Molecular subtyping was performed in 124 (82%) of 152 TNBC tumors that were obtained from a prospective, multicenter cohort including 1,270 histopathologically confirmed invasive, nonmetastatic BCs (NCT01592825). Treatment was guideline-based. TNBC subtypes were correlated with recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival (OS) after 5 years of observation., Results: Using PAM50 analysis, 87% of the tumors were typed as basal with an inferior clinical outcome compared to patients with nonbasal tumors. Using the TNBCtype-6 classifier, we identified 23 (15%) of TNBCs as LAR subtype. After standard adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy, patients with LAR subtype showed the most events for 5-year RFI (66.7 vs. 80.6%) and the poorest probability of 5-year OS (60.0 vs. 84.4%) compared to patients with non-LAR disease (RFI: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-5.05, p = 0.211; OS: aHR = 2.74, 95% CI 1.06-7.10, p = 0.037)., Conclusion: Molecular analysis and subtyping of TNBC may be relevant to identify patients with LAR subtype. These cancers seem to be less sensitive to conventional chemotherapy, and new treatment options, including androgen receptor-blocking agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors, have to be explored., Competing Interests: C. Hartung, M. Porsch, K. Stückrath, S. Kaufhold, M.S. Staege, V. Hanf, S. Peschel, J. John, M. Pöhler, E. Weigert, J. Buchmann, K.-F. Bürrig, K. Schüler, D. Bethmann, I. Große, and E.J. Kantelhardt have no conflicts of interest to declare. T. Lantzsch reports personal honoraria from Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Roche, and Novartis, all outside the submitted work. C. Uleer reports personal honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Onkowis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Seagen, all outside the submitted work. C. Thomssen reports personal honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MEDA-Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, and Vifor, all outside the submitted work. M. Vetter got travel support from NanoString., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The association of early changes in the immune infiltrate during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with pathological complete response (pCR) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains unexplored., Methods: Multiplexed immunohistochemistry was performed in matched tumor biopsies obtained at baseline and after 3 weeks of NACT from 66 patients from the West German Study Group Adjuvant Dynamic Marker-Adjusted Personalized Therapy Trial Optimizing Risk Assessment and Therapy Response Prediction in Early Breast Cancer - Triple Negative Breast Cancer (WSG-ADAPT-TN) trial. Association between CD4, CD8, CD73, T cells, PD1-positive CD4 and CD8 cells, and PDL1 levels in stroma and/or tumor at baseline, week 3 and 3-week change with pCR was evaluated with univariable logistic regression., Results: Compared with no change in immune cell composition and functional markers, transition from 'cold' to 'hot' (below-median and above-median marker level at baseline, respectively) suggested higher pCR rates for PD1-positive CD4 (tumor: OR=1.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.42; stroma: OR=2.65, 95% CI 0.65 to 10.71) and PD1-positive CD8 infiltrates (tumor: OR=1.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 5.20; stroma: OR=1.25, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.84; tumor+stroma: OR=1.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.12). No pCR was observed after 'hot-to-cold' transition in PD1-positive CD8 cells. pCR rates appeared lower after hot-to-cold transitions in T cells (tumor: OR=0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34; stroma: OR=0.35, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.25; tumor+stroma: OR=0.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.04) and PD1-positive CD4 cells (tumor: OR=0.60, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.35; stroma: OR=0.22, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.92; tumor+stroma: OR=0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.94). Higher pCR rates collated with 'altered' distribution (levels below-median and above-median in tumor and stroma, respectively) of T cell (OR=3.50, 95% CI 0.84 to 14.56) and PD1-positive CD4 cells (OR=4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.14)., Conclusion: Our exploratory findings indicate that comprehensive analysis of early immune infiltrate dynamics complements currently investigated predictive markers for pCR and may have a potential to improve guidance for individualized de-escalation/escalation strategies in TNBC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This review summarises not only the latest evidence on prevention, but also the current research on the treatment of early-stage breast cancer patients. Recent years have seen a growing body of evidence on the risk of high- and moderate-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. A large international consortium has now been able to further refine the answer to the question of the significance of the so-called panel genes. Moreover, the data on treatment selection regarding endocrine efficacy and the decision for or against chemotherapy have also been advanced markedly. There is also new data on adjuvant CDK4/6 (cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6) inhibitors, which are standard in first-line treatment in patients with metastatic HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. For other therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, which have successfully improved the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in neoadjuvant treatment settings for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), there is a growing understanding of the quality of life and side effects. This is especially important in situations where patients could possibly be cured without such a regimen., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt E. S. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. B. A. received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo and Pfizer. E. B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, BBraun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mentor and MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, onkowissen.de, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and Biontech. 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. J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche during the conduct of the study. 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. C. K.-L. has received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Hexal, Amgen, Eisai, and SonoScape, honoraria for consultancy from Phaon Scientific, Novartis, Pfizer, and Celgene, research funding from Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer, and travel grants from Novartis and Roche. 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, Lily, SurgVision, Onkowissen 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, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Exact Sciences and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca, medac and Eisai. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, Seattle Genetics and Nektar. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. M. S. has previously received honoraria for advisory board duty from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Eisai. A. S. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH and promedicis GmbH. F. S. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen and Roche and received honoraria for lectures from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer. C. T. Advisory boards, lectures: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Medapharm, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Tesaro, and Vifor. C. U. received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, MSD and onkowissen.de. M. U. all honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. M. W. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. A. W. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai and received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. W. has received personal fees/travel support from Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Clinsol, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte and Viatris. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Pierre-Fabre, Roche and Sysmex and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Hexal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences and pfm medical and has received trial funding by Exact Sciences and Endomag. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work./ E. S. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. B. A. erhielt Honorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo und Pfizer. E. B. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, BBraun und onkowissen.de für Beratung, klinisches Forschungsmanagement bzw. medizinische Fortbildungsaktivitäten. N. D. erhielt Honorare von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mentor und MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, onkowissen.de, AstraZeneca, Merck-Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma und Teva. Sein Institut forscht mit finanzieller Unterstützung von Novartis und Biontech. T. N. F. war für Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche in Beratungsgremien tätig und erhielt für Vortragstätigkeit Honorare von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt für Vortrags- und Beratertätigkeiten Honorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. C. J. gibt persönliche Honorare von AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis und Roche während der Durchführung der Studie an. W.J . hat Forschungszuschüsse und/oder Honorare von Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Celgene und Johnson&Johnson erhalten. C. K.-L. erhielt Honorare von Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Hexal, Amgen, Eisai und SonoScape, Honorare für Beratungstätigkeit von Phaon Scientific, Novartis, Pfizer und Celgene, Forschungsgelder von Roche, Novartis und Pfizer sowie Reisekostenzuschüsse von Novartis und Roche. H.-C. K. hat Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lily, SurgVision, Onkowissen und MSD erhalten, Reiseunterstützung 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, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro und Teva. M. P. L. war in Beiräten für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Exact Sciences und Roche tätig und erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca, medac und Eisai. V. M. erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics und Honorare für Beratungstätigkeit von Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, Seattle Genetics und Nektar. Institutionelle Forschungsunterstützung von Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Genentech. Reisekostenzuschüsse: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. M. S. hat zuvor Honorare für Beiratstätigkeit von Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca und Eisai erhalten. A. S. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH und promedicis GmbH. F. S. war in Beiräten für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen und Roche tätig und erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis und Pfizer. H. T. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisekostenunterstützung von Roche, Celgene und Pfizer. C. T. Beiräte, Vorträge: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Medapharm, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Tesaro und Vifor. C. U. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD und onkowissen.de. M. U. alle Honorare gingen an die Einrichtung/den Arbeitgeber: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. M. W. hat in Beiräten für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche mitgewirkt. A. W. war in Beiräten für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai tätig und erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. W. hat persönliche Honorare/Reiseunterstützung erhalten von Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Clinsol, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte und Viatris. M. T. war in Beiräten von AstraZeneca, ClearCut, Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Neodynamics, Novartis, Pfizer, pfm medical, Pierre-Fabre, Roche und Sysmex tätig und hat von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Hexal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences und pfm medical Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit sowie Studienfinanzierung von Exact Sciences und Endomag erhalten. Die anderen Autoren geben keinen Interessenkonflikt für diese konkrete Arbeit an., (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/ ).)

This review summarises and discusses significant aspects of recently published studies on patient treatment in advanced breast cancer and on biomarkers in breast cancer. In recent years, a large number of drugs for all molecular subtypes have been developed up to phase III trials. With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastasised breast cancer, the recent discussion has centred on the best candidate for combined chemotherapy. The oral taxanes could become a new type of oral chemotherapies. There is a growing body of data on biomarkers for the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors, which could also signify further development for other molecular subtypes. New substances have been developed for metastatic HER2+ breast cancer that still result in good remission even after massive prior treatment and/or cerebral metastasis. Similarly, knowledge is growing about targeted therapies with antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) against Trop-2, which could bolster our therapeutic armoury in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In addition, the clinical focus is on understanding how to maintain fertility after breast cancer treatment. Here, pooled analyses provide new insights., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt B. A. received honoria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo and Pfizer. E. B. received honoraria from Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, BBraun and onkowissen.de for consulting, clinical research management or medical education activities. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mentor, and 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. 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. J. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis and Roche during the conduct of the study. C. K.-L. has received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Hexal, Amgen, Eisai, and SonoScape, honoraria for consultancy from Phaon Scientific, Novartis, Pfizer, and Celgene, research funding from Roche, Novartis, and Pfizer, and travel grants from Novartis and Roche. 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, Lily, SurgVision, Onkowissen 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, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Hexal and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca, and Eisai. He is editorial board member of medactuell from medac. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics and consultancy honoraria from Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, Seattle Genetics and Nektar. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. E. S. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. M. S. has previously received honoraria for advisory board duty from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Eisai. A. S. received honoraria from Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH and promedicis GmbH. F. S. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen and Roche and received honoraria for lectures from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene and Pfizer. C. T. Advisory boards, lectures: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Medapharm, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Tesaro, and Vifor. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Pierre-Fabre and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, and AstraZeneca and has received trial funding by Exact. C. U. received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Astra-Zeneca, MSD and onkowissen.de. M. U. all honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Daichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. M. W. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. A. W. participated on advisory boards for Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai and received honoraria for lectures from Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. W. has received personal fees/travel support from Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, Astra Zeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Clinsol, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte and Viatris. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work./ B. A. erhielt Honorare und Reisekostenzuschüsse von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo und Pfizer. E. B. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Bluebird, BBraun und onkowissen.de für Beratung, klinisches Forschungsmanagement bzw. medizinische Fortbildungsaktivitäten. N. D. erhielt Honorare von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Mentor und 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. Sein Institut forscht mit finanzieller Unterstützung von Novartis und Biontech. T. N. F. war für Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche in Beratungsgremien tätig und erhielt für Vortragstätigkeit Honorare von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt für Vortrags- und Beratertätigkeiten Honorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi-Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. C. J. gibt persönliche Honorare von AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Lilly, Novartis und Roche während der Durchführung der Studie an. C. K.-L. erhielt Honorare von Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Hexal, Amgen, Eisai und SonoScape, Honorare für Beratungstätigkeit von Phaon Scientific, Novartis, Pfizer und Celgene, Forschungsgelder von Roche, Novartis und Pfizer sowie Reisekostenzuschüsse von Novartis und Roche. H.-C. K. hat Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lily, SurgVision, Onkowissen und MSD erhalten, Reiseunterstützung 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, Celgene, Lilly, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro und Teva. M. P. L. war in Beiräten für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Hexal und Roche tätig und erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, AstraZeneca, Eisai. Er ist Redaktionsmitglied bei medactuell von medac. V. M. erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seattle Genetics und Honorare für Beratungstätigkeit von Genomic Health, Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Tesaro, Seattle Genetics und Nektar. Institutionelle Forschungsunterstützung von Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Genentech. Reisekostenzuschüsse: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi-Sankyo. E. S. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Tesaro, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH, Onkowissen TV. M. S. hat zuvor Honorare für Beiratstätigkeit von Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca und Eisai erhalten. A. S. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Zuckschwerdt Verlag GmbH, Georg Thieme Verlag, Aurikamed GmbH, MCI Deutschland GmbH, bsh medical communications GmbH und promedicis GmbH. F. S. war in Beiräten für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen und Roche tätig und erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis und Pfizer. H. T. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisekostenunterstützung von Roche, Celgene und Pfizer. C. T. Beiräte, Vorträge: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Mundipharma, Medapharm, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Tesaro und Vifor. M. T. war in Beiräten für AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Pierre-Fabre und Roche tätig und erhielt Honorare für Vorträge von Clovis, Daiichi-Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences und AstraZeneca und erhielt Studienfinanzierung von Exact. C. U. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, MSD und onkowissen.de. M. U. alle Honorare gingen an die Einrichtung/den Arbeitgeber: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD Merck, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, PUMA Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre. M. W. hat in Beiräten für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche mitgewirkt. A. W. war in Beiräten für Novartis, Lilly, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro, Eisai tätig und erhielt Honorare für Vortragstätigkeit von Novartis, Pfizer, Aurikamed, Roche, Celgene. R. W. hat persönliche Honorare/Reiseunterstützung erhalten von Agendia, Amgen, Aristo, AstraZeneca, Boeringer Ingelheim, Carl Zeiss, Celgene, Clinsol, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Exact Sciences, Genomic Health, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hexal, Lilly, Medstrom Medical, MSD, Mundipharma, Nanostring, Novartis, Odonate, Paxman, Palleos, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Puma Biotechnology, Riemser, Roche, Sandoz/Hexal, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro Bio, Teva, Veracyte und Viatris. Die anderen Autoren geben keinen Interessenkonflikt für diese konkrete Arbeit an., (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/ ).)

Purpose: This study explores the sociodemographic, medical and work-related factors leading to a participation in an in-house rehabilitation measure after primary treatment for breast cancer., Methods: The prospective multi-center study is based on a written survey with employed breast cancer patients who were recruited at 11 breast cancer centers in Lower Saxony, Germany. Predictors of participation were examined by logistic regression, predictors of the time period before starting the rehabilitation by linear regression., Results: 409 patients returned their questionnaires at all three time-points. Response rates were 80,1% 3 weeks after surgery (t0), 95,2% 6 months after surgery (t1) and 89,9% one year after surgery (t2). Altogether, 294 patients (72%) participated in the rehabilitation measure. Respondents, 90% of whom participated in rehabilitation before returning to work, began their rehabilitation on average 21 weeks after primary surgery. They showed an increased probability of participation if they had indicated the need to clarify their job situation (OR=2,74, p<0,01), or if their answers displayed a detrimental relation between effort and reward at work (OR=3,89, p<0,05). At the same time, higher age, a higher level of school education (OR=4,23) and reduced physical health (OR=0,94, p<0,01) increased the chance for breast cancer patients to take part in oncological rehabilitation. The starting point of rehabilitation was only predictable by medical treatments: adjuvant chemotherapy (β=0,492, p≤0,001), additional surgery (β=0,112, p<0,05), and radiation therapy within the second half year after primary surgery (β=0,20; p<0,001) led to a postponement., Conclusion: This study shows that an increased need of breast cancer patients for medical and socio-psychological support leads to their participation in an in-house rehabilitation and thus underlines the necessity of these institutions. Women with an impaired psychological health should be given extra attention., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and toxicity of olaparib as combination therapy in early breast cancer (BC) patients with homologous recombinant deficiency (HRD) [score high and/or germline (g) or tumour (t) BRCA1/2 mutation] is not well described. GeparOLA (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02789332) investigated olaparib in combination with paclitaxel in HER2-negative early BC with HRD., Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated primary HER2-negative cT2-cT4a-d or cT1c with either cN+ or pNSLN+ or cT1c and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or cT1c and Ki-67>20% BC with HRD were randomised either to paclitaxel (P) 80 mg/m 2 weekly plus olaparib (O) 100 mg twice daily for 12 weeks or P plus carboplatinum (Cb) area under the curve 2 weekly for 12 weeks, both followed by epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC). Stratification factors were hormone receptor (HR) status (HR+ versus HR-) and age (<40 versus ≥40 years). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0/is ypN0). A two-sided one-group χ 2 -test was planned to exclude a pCR rate of ≤55% in the PO-EC arm. Secondary end points were other pCR definitions, breast conservation rate, clinical/imaging response, tolerability and safety., Results: A total of 107 patients were randomised between September 2016 and July 2018; 106 (PO N = 69; PCb N = 37) started treatment. Median age was 47.0 years (range 25.0-71.0); 36.2% had cT1, 61.0% cT2, 2.9% cT3, and 31.8% cN-positive tumours; grade 3 tumours: 86.8%; Ki-67>20%: 89.6%; TNBC: 72.6%; confirmed gBRCA1/2 mutation: 56.2%. The pCR rate with PO was 55.1% [90% confidence interval (CI) 44.5% to 65.3%] versus PCb 48.6% (90% CI 34.3% to 63.2%). Analysis for the stratified subgroups showed higher pCR rates with PO in the cohorts of patients <40 years and HR+ patients., Conclusion: GeparOLA could not exclude a pCR rate of ≤55% in the PO arm. PO was significantly better tolerated and the combination merits further evaluation., Competing Interests: Disclosure PAF reports grants from Novartis, BioNtech, personal fees from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MacroGenics, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, grants from Cepheid, personal fees from Lilly, during the conduct of the study. TL reports non-financial support from Pharma Mar, Daiichi Sankyo, Celgene; personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Clovis; personal fees from Amgen, Novartis, Teva, Tesaro. AS reports grants from Celgene, Roche, AbbVie, Molecular Partners, expert testimony from Roche and AstraZeneca; travel expenses from Celgene, Roche and Pfizer, honoraria from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, MSD, Tesaro and Lilly, outside the submitted work. CJ reports personal fees from AstraZeneca and Roche during the conduct of the study. JH reports personal fees and travel expenses from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca; personal fees from Lilly, Celgene, MSD, AbbVie, Eisai; grants from Hexal, Celgene; grants and personal fees from Novartis, travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo, outside the submitted work. WDS reports grants from German Breast Group, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. SaS reports other from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; personal fees and advisory boards from Amgen, Hexal, Roche, Mundipharma; travel expenses from Novartis, outside the submitted work. CD reports personal fees from Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo, grants from Myriad Genetics, other from Sividon Diagnostics/Myriad outside the submitted work and has a patent EP18209672 pending, a patent EP20150702464 pending, and a patent software (VMscope digital pathology) pending. CH reports personal fees from Roche, Celgene, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis outside the submitted work. KR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Pfizer outside the submitted work. RS reports grants from Cologne Furtune during the conduct of the study. J-UB reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SonoScape, outside the submitted work. MU reports personal fees and non-financial support to the institute from AbbVie, Amgen GmbH, AstraZeneca, Celgene GmbH, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai GmbH, MSD, Mundipharma, Myriad Genetics, Odonate, Pfizer GmbH, Roche, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH; Teva Pharmaceuticals Ind Ltd, Novartis, Clovis Oncology; personal fees and others from BMS, Lilly; personal fees from Puma Biotechnology, Pierre Fabre outside the submitted work. SL reports grants and honoraria from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study; grants and honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, other from Seattle Genetics, PriME/ Medscape; personal fees and lecture honoraria from Chugai, grants from Teva, Vifor, Immunomedics grants and honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, honoraria from Lilly, Samsung, Eirgenix, BMS, Puma, MSD, outside the submitted work and has a patent EP14153692.0 pending. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the neoadjuvant WSG-ADAPT-TN trial, 12-week nab-paclitaxel + carboplatin (nab-pac/carbo) was highly effective and superior to nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine (nab-pac/gem) in triple-negative breast cancer regarding pathological complete response (pCR). Predictive markers for deescalated taxane/carbo use in TNBC need to be identified. Patients received 4 × nab-pac 125 mg/m 2 (plus carbo AUC2 or gem 1,000 mg/m 2 d1,8 q21). Expression of 119 genes and PAM50 scores by nCounter were available in 306/336 pretherapeutic samples. Interim survival analysis was planned after 36 months median follow-up. Basal-like (83.3%) compared to other subtypes was positively associated with pCR (38% vs. 20%, p = 0.015), as was lower HER2 score (p < 0.001). Proliferation biomarkers were positively associated with pCR, that is, PAM50 proliferation, ROR scores (all p < 0.004), higher Ki-67 (IHC; p < 0.001). For nab-pac/carbo, expression of immunological (CD8, PD1 and PFDL1) genes and proliferation markers (proliferation and ROR scores, MKI67, CDC20, NUF2, KIF2C, CENPF, EMP3 and TYMS) were positively associated with pCR (p < 0.05 for all). For nab-pac/gem, angiogenesis genes were negatively associated with pCR (ANGPTL4: p = 0.05; FGFR4: p = 0.02; VEGFA: p = 0.03). pCR after 12 weeks was strongly associated with favorable outcome (3y event-free survival: 92% vs. 71%, p < 0.001). In early TNBC, basal-like subtype, higher Ki-67 (IHC) and lower HER2 score were, associated with chemosensitivity. Chemoresistance pathways differed between the two taxane based combinations. Combination of proliferation/immune markers and PAM50 subtype could allow patient selection for further deescalated chemotherapy and/or immune treatment approaches., (© 2019 UICC.)

Purpose: The West German Study Group PlanB trial evaluated an anthracycline-free chemotherapy standard (six cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide [TC]) in the routine treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early breast cancer (EBC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with pT1 to pT4c, all pN+, and pN0/high-risk EBC were eligible. High-risk pN0 was defined by one or more of the following: pT greater than 2, grade 2 to 3, high urokinase-type plasminogen activator/plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, hormone receptor (HR) negativity, and less than 35 years of age. After an early amendment, all HR-positive tumors underwent recurrence score (RS) testing, with chemotherapy omission recommended in RS less than or equal to 11 pN0 to pN1 disease. Patients were randomly assigned to four cycles of epirubicin (E) 90 /cyclophoshamide (C) 600 followed by four cycles of docetaxel (T) 100 or six cycles of T 75 C 600 (administered once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS); secondary end points were overall survival (OS) and safety. The protocol specified P = .05 for a noninferiority margin of 4.4% for all patients combined., Results: Of the 3,198 registered patients, 348 (RS ≤ 11) omitted chemotherapy, and 401 were not randomly assigned. The intention-to-treat population included 2,449 patients (1,227 EC-T v 1,222 TC: postmenopausal, 62.2% v 60.8%; pN0, 58.2% v 59.5%; pT1, 57.6% v 52.3%; HR positive, 81.4% v 82.2%; RS greater than 25 [in HR-positive patients], 26.2% v 27.5%). Within the safety population (1,167 v 1,178 patients), 87.5% v 93.0% completed therapy. After a 60-month median follow-up, 5-year outcomes were similar in the EC-T and TC arms (DFS, 89.6% [95% CI, 87.9% to 91.5%] v 89.9% [95% CI, 88.1% to 91.8%]; OS, 94.5% [95% CI, 93.1% to 95.9%] v 94.7% [95% CI, 93.3% to 96.1%]). The DFS difference was within the noninferiority margin of the original trial design. Five treatment-related deaths were reported for TC (one for EC-T), despite a trend toward more-severe adverse events in the latter. Interaction analysis revealed no predictive trends with respect to key factors, including triple-negative, luminal A/B-like, pN, age, and RS status., Conclusion: In the West German Study Group PlanB trial, 5-year outcomes for TC and EC-T were equally excellent. Six cycles of TC is an effective/safe option in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative EBC with pN0 high genomic risk or pN1 EBC with genomically intermediate- to high-risk disease.

Background: Genetic factors play a substantial role in breast cancer etiology. Genes encoding proteins that have key functions in the DNA damage response, such as p53 and its inhibitors MDM2 and MDMX, are most likely candidates to harbor allelic variants that influence breast cancer susceptibility. The aim of our study was to comprehensively analyze the impact of SNPs in the TP53 , MDM2 , and MDMX genes in conjunction with TP53 mutational status regarding the onset and progression of breast cancer., Methods: In specimen from 815 breast cancer patients, five SNPs within the selected genes were analyzed: TP53 - Arg72Pro (rs1042522), MDM2 - SNP285 (rs2279744), SNP309 (rs117039649); MDMX - SNP31826 (rs1563828), and SNP34091 (rs4245739). Classification of the tumors was evaluated by histomorphology. Subtyping according hormone receptor status, HER2-status and proliferation rate enabled provision of the clinico-pathological surrogate of intrinsic subtypes., Results: The homozygous C-allele of MDM2 SNP285 was significantly associated with a younger age-at-diagnosis of 44.2 years, in contrast to G/G- and G/C-patients (62.4, 62.7 yrs., respectively; p = 0.0007; log-Rank-test). In contrast, there was no difference regarding the age-at-diagnosis for patients with the respective genotypes of MDM2 SNP309 ( p = 0.799; log-Rank-test). In patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and TP53 -mutated tumors, however, the T/T-genotype of the MDM2 SNP309 was significantly associated with an earlier average age-at-diagnosis compared with T/G+G/G-patients (53.5 vs. 68.2 yrs; p = 0.002; log-Rank-test). In the triple-negative subgroup, the G/G-patients had an average age-at-diagnosis of 51 years compared with 63 years for SNP309T carriers ( p = 0.004; log-Rank-test) indicating a susceptibility of the G/G genotype for the development of triple negative breast cancer. Patients with the A/A-genotype of MDMX SNP31826 with ER-negative tumors were diagnosed 11 years earlier compared with patients and ER-positive tumors (53.2 vs. 64.4 yrs; p = 0.025, log-Rank-test). Furthermore, in luminal B-like patients (HER2-independent) the C/C-genotype of MDMX SNP34091 was significantly correlated with a decreased event-free survival compared with the A/A-genotype ( p < 0.001; log-Rank-test)., Conclusions: We showed that SNPs in the MDM2 and MDMX genes affect at least in part the onset and progression of breast cancer dependent on the ER-status. Our findings provide further evidence for the distinct etiological pathways in ER-negative and ER-positive breast cancers., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Summary The first German interdisciplinary S3-guideline on the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer was published in April 2018. Funded by German Cancer Aid as part of an Oncology Guidelines Program, the lead coordinators of the guideline were the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG). Purpose Using evidence-based, risk-adapted therapy to treat low-risk women with endometrial cancer avoids unnecessarily radical surgery and non-useful adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. This can significantly reduce therapy-induced morbidity and improve the patient's quality of life as well as avoiding unnecessary costs. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimal extent of surgical radicality together with the appropriate chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiotherapy if required. An evidence-based optimal use of different therapeutic modalities should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. This S3-guideline on endometrial cancer is intended as a basis for certified gynecological cancer centers. The aim is that the quality indicators established in this guideline will be incorporated in the certification processes of these centers. Methods The guideline was compiled in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines. This includes, in the first instance, the adaptation of source guidelines selected using the DELBI instrument for appraising guidelines. Other consulted sources included reviews of evidence, which were compiled from literature selected during systematic searches of literature databases using the PICO scheme. In addition, an external biostatistics institute was commissioned to carry out a systematic search and assessment of the literature for one part of the guideline. Identified materials were used by the interdisciplinary working groups to develop suggestions for Recommendations and Statements, which were then subsequently modified during structured consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI method, with consent between members achieved online. The guideline report is freely available online. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of endometrial cancer including precancers and early endometrial cancer as well as recommendations on palliative medicine, psycho-oncology, rehabilitation, patient information and healthcare facilities to treat endometrial cancer. The management of precancers of early endometrial precancerous conditions including fertility-preserving strategies is presented. The concept used for surgical primary therapy of endometrial cancer is described. Radiotherapy and adjuvant medical therapy to treat endometrial cancer and uterine carcinosarcomas are described. Recommendations are given for the follow-up care of endometrial cancer, recurrence and metastasis. Palliative medicine, psycho-oncology including psychosocial care, and patient information and rehabilitation are presented. Finally, the care algorithm and quality assurance steps for the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer are outlined.

Summary The first German interdisciplinary S3-guideline on the diagnosis, therapy and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer was published in April 2018. Funded by German Cancer Aid as part of an Oncology Guidelines Program, the lead coordinators of the guideline were the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG). Purpose The use of evidence-based, risk-adapted therapy to treat low-risk women with endometrial cancer avoids unnecessarily radical surgery and non-useful adjuvant radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. This can significantly reduce therapy-induced morbidity and improve the patient's quality of life as well as avoiding unnecessary costs. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimal surgical radicality together with the appropriate chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiotherapy where required. The evidence-based optimal use of different therapeutic modalities should improve survival rates and the quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer is intended as a basis for certified gynecological cancer centers. The aim is that the quality indicators established in this guideline will be incorporated in the certification processes of these centers. Methods The guideline was compiled in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines. This includes, in the first instance, the adaptation of source guidelines selected using the DELBI instrument for appraising guidelines. Other consulted sources include reviews of evidence which were compiled from literature selected during systematic searches of literature databases using the PICO scheme. In addition, an external biostatistics institute was commissioned to carry out a systematic search and assessment of the literature for one area of the guideline. The identified materials were used by the interdisciplinary working groups to develop suggestions for Recommendations and Statements, which were then modified during structured consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI method with consent being reached online. The guideline report is freely available online. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis and hereditary factors, The epidemiology of endometrial cancer and the risk factors for developing endomentrial cancer are presented. The options for screening and the methods used to diagnose endometrial cancer including the pathology of the cancer are outlined. Recommendations are given for the prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of hereditary forms of endometrial cancer.

Background: Pathological complete response (pCR) is associated with improved prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The optimal chemotherapy regimen is unclear. Weekly nab-paclitaxel vs conventional paclitaxel or addition of carboplatin to anthracycline-taxane results in higher pCR rates with uncertain survival impact. We evaluated carboplatin vs gemcitabine with a nab-paclitaxel backbone as a short 12-week A-free regimen with a focus on early response., Methods: Patients with TNBC (estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor < 1%, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, cT1c-cT4c, cN0/+) were randomly assigned to A: nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2/gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 d1,8 three times weekly (q3w); vs B: nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2/carboplatin AUC2 day 1,8 q3w. The trial was powered for a pCR (ypT0/is ypN0) comparison by therapy arm and early response (defined as Ki-67 decrease >30% or < 500 invasive tumor cells in the three-week serial biopsy). All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: A total of 336 patients were enrolled (48 centers, arms A/B: n = 182/154). The median age was 50 years. At baseline (A vs B), 62.6% and 62.9% had cT2-4c tumors; 86.8% and 90.9% completed therapy per protocol, respectively. pCR favored arm B (28.7%, 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.36, vs 45.9%, 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.54; 95% CI(dBA) = 6.2% to 27.9%, P = .002) and was lower in nonresponders than in early responders (19.5% vs 44.4%, P < .001) or in patients with unclassifiable early response (50.0%). The nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine was associated with more frequent dose reductions (20.6% vs 11.9%, P = .04), treatment-related serious adverse events (11.1% vs 5.3%, P = .07), grade 3-4 infections (7.2% vs 2.6%, P = .07), and grade 3-4 ALAT elevations (11.7 vs 3.3%, P = .01)., Conclusions: This first large randomized trial suggests high efficacy and excellent tolerability of a neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin regimen, superior to nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine in TNBC. De-escalation of further chemotherapy in patients with early pCR after a short anthracycline-free regimen is a promising field of future research. Early necrotic morphological changes and/or proliferation decrease after the first therapy cycle seem to be associated with subsequent pCR.

Background: Breast cancer tumors are known to be highly heterogeneous and differences in their metabolic phenotypes, especially at protein level, are less well-understood. Profiling of metabolism-related proteins harbors the potential to establish new patient stratification regimes and biomarkers promoting individualized therapy. In our study, we aimed to examine the relationship between metabolism-associated protein expression profiles and clinicopathological characteristics in a large cohort of breast cancer patients., Methods: Breast cancer specimens from 801 consecutive patients, diagnosed between 2009 and 2011, were investigated using reverse phase protein arrays (RPPA). Patients were treated in accordance with national guidelines in five certified German breast centers. To obtain quantitative expression data, 37 antibodies detecting proteins relevant to cancer metabolism, were applied. Hierarchical cluster analysis and individual target characterization were performed. Clustering results and individual protein expression patterns were associated with clinical data. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival functions. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to assess the impact of protein expression and other clinicopathological features on survival., Results: We identified three metabolic clusters of breast cancer, which do not reflect the receptor-defined subtypes, but are significantly correlated with overall survival (OS, p ≤ 0.03) and recurrence-free survival (RFS, p ≤ 0.01). Furthermore, univariate and multivariate analysis of individual protein expression profiles demonstrated the central role of serine hydroxymethyltransferase 2 (SHMT2) and amino acid transporter ASCT2 (SLC1A5) as independent prognostic factors in breast cancer patients. High SHMT2 protein expression was significantly correlated with poor OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.12, p ≤ 0.01) and RFS (HR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.16-2.04, p ≤ 0.01). High protein expression of ASCT2 was significantly correlated with poor RFS (HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.01-1.71, p ≤ 0.05)., Conclusions: Our data confirm the heterogeneity of breast tumors at a functional proteomic level and dissects the relationship between metabolism-related proteins, pathological features and patient survival. These observations highlight the importance of SHMT2 and ASCT2 as valuable individual prognostic markers and potential targets for personalized breast cancer therapy., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01592825 . Registered on 3 May 2012.

Objective: The objective of this study is to examine results of bacterial cultures of the cervix prior to cerclage placement and how these may be used to guide prophylactic antibiotics., Methods: All patients undergoing cerclage between 2000 and 2003 in a single, large community hospital were evaluated for indication for cerclage, signs and symptoms on presentation, transvaginal ultrasound cervical length findings, type of cerclage placed, type of anesthesia used, cervical culture taken, tocolytics given, gestational age at delivery, and complications surrounding delivery., Results: Sixty-five cerclages were performed between 2000 and 2003, 13 (20%) prophylactic, 47 (72%) therapeutic, and five (8%) emergent. Cervical cultures were obtained in 85% of patients, of which 40% were negative resulting in no antibiotics given. In the remaining 45%, one or more pathogens were isolated and antibiotics were given according to sensitivities reported. Fifty-five of 65 patients (84%) delivered after 32 weeks gestation and a latency > 60 d was seen in 84%. The incidence of chorioamnionitis and PPROM was low., Conclusion: Bacterial cultures of the cervix prior to cerclage show variable colonization and antibiotic sensitivities and, there is no single antibiotic, chosen empirically, that will cover all pathogens.

Background: The GeparQuinto study showed that adding bevacizumab to 24 weeks of anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases pathological complete response (pCR) rates overall and specifically in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). No difference in pCR rate was observed for adding everolimus to paclitaxel in nonearly responding patients. Here, we present disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses., Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 1948) with HER2-negative tumors of a median tumor size of 4 cm were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant treatment with epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (EC-T) with or without eight infusions of bevacizumab every 3 weeks before surgery. Patients without clinical response to EC ± Bevacizumab were randomized to 12 weekly cycles paclitaxel with or without everolimus 5 mg/day. To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (α = 0.05, β = 0.8) 379 events had to be observed in the bevacizumab arms., Results: With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, 3-year DFS was 80.8% and 3-year OS was 89.7%. Outcome was not different for patients receiving bevacizumab (HR 1.03; P = 0.784 for DFS and HR 0.974; P = 0.842 for OS) compared with patients receiving chemotherapy alone. Patients with TNBC similarly showed no improvement in DFS (HR = 0.99; P = 0.941) and OS (HR = 1.02; P = 0.891) when treated with bevacizumab. No other predefined subgroup (HR+/HER2-; locally advanced (cT4 or cN3) or not; cT1-3 or cT4; pCR or not) showed a significant benefit. No difference in DFS (HR 0.997; P = 0.987) and OS (HR 1.11; P = 0.658) was observed for nonearly responding patients receiving paclitaxel with or without everolimus overall as well as in subgroups., Conclusions: Long-term results, in opposite to the results of pCR, do not support the neoadjuvant use of bevacizumab in addition to an anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy or everolimus in addition to paclitaxel for nonearly responding patients., Clinical Trial Number: NCT 00567554, www.clinicaltrials.gov., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)