Search

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

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

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

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

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: The receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B (RANK) and its ligand (RANKL) have been shown to promote proliferation of the breast and breast carcinogenesis. The objective of this analysis was to investigate whether tumor-specific RANK and RANKL expression in patients with primary breast cancer is associated with high percentage mammographic density (PMD), which is a known breast cancer risk factor., Methods: Immunohistochemical staining of RANK and RANKL was performed in tissue microarrays (TMAs) from primary breast cancer samples of the Bavarian Breast Cancer Cases and Controls (BBCC) study. For RANK and RANKL expression, histochemical scores (H scores) with a cut-off value of > 0 vs 0 were established. PMD was measured in the contralateral, non-diseased breast. Linear regression models with PMD as outcome were calculated using common predictors of PMD (age at breast cancer diagnosis, body mass index (BMI) and parity) and RANK and RANKL H scores. Additionally, Spearman rank correlations (ρ) between PMD and RANK and RANKL H score were performed., Results: In the final cohort of 412 patients, breast cancer-specific RANK and RANKL expression was not associated with PMD (P = 0.68). There was no correlation between PMD and RANK H score (Spearman's ρ = 0.01, P = 0.87) or RANKL H score (Spearman's ρ = 0.04, P = 0.41). RANK expression was highest in triple-negative tumors, followed by HER2-positive, luminal B-like and luminal A-like tumors, while no subtype-specific expression of RANKL was found., Conclusion: Results do not provide evidence for an association of RANK and RANKL expression in primary breast cancer with PMD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In recent years, new targeted therapies have been developed to treat patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer. Some of these therapies have not just become the new therapy standard but also led to significantly longer overall survival rates. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) have become the therapeutic standard for first-line therapy. Around 70 - 80% of patients are treated with a CDK4/6i. In recent years, a number of biomarkers associated with progression, clonal selection or evolution have been reported for CDK4/6i and their endocrine combination partners. Understanding the mechanisms behind treatment efficacy and resistance is important. A better understanding could contribute to planning the most effective therapeutic sequences and utilizing basic molecular information to overcome endocrine resistance. One study with large numbers of patients which aims to elucidate these mechanisms is the Comprehensive Analysis of sPatial, TempORal and molecular patterns of ribociclib efficacy and resistance in advanced Breast Cancer patients (CAPTOR BC) trial. This overview summarizes the latest clinical research on resistance to endocrine therapies, focusing on CDK4/6 inhibitors and discussing current study concepts., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt B. A. received honoria and travel grants from AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer. C. B. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. received honoraria from Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun and onkowissen.de for clinical research management and/or medical education activities. S. Y. B. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. has received honoraria from MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma and Teva. His institution conducts research with funding from Novartis and BioNtech. T. E. has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. T. N. F. has participated on advisory boards for Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis and Pfizer. A. D. H. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal and Pfizer. C. C. H. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. received speaker honoraria from Novartis. H. N. received honoraria for lectures and/or consulting from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. has received research grants and/or honoraria from Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene and Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. has received honoraria from Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, travel support from Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro and owns stock of Theraclion SA and Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex and Hexal and has received honoraria for lectures from MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca, and Eisai. V. M. received speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 Oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Consultancy honoraria from Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead. Institutional research support from Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Travel grants: Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. B. R. reports research grants from Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata. Honoraria from AZ, Roche. C. R. is an employee of Novartis Deutschland GmbH. A. S. received research grants from Celgene, Roche, honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme and travel support from Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. K. S. received travel support from Gilead and Lilly. F.-A. T. received speaker and consultancy honoraria from AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. received honoraria from Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and travel support from Roche, Celgene, and Pfizer. M. T. has participated on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, and Roche and has received honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor and AstraZeneca and has received trial funding from Exact Sciences and Endomag Manuscript support was provided by Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. all honoraria went to the institution/employer: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. has received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen and Eli Lilly. The other authors (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) have no conflict of interest to declare for this specific work./ B. A. erhielt Honorare und Reisekosten von AstraZeneca, Gilead, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Onkowissen, Daiichi Sankyo und Pfizer. C. B. ist Angestellte der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. E. B. erhielt Honorare von Gilead, Ipsen, Sanofi, Sandoz, SunPharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Hexal, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, B Braun und onkowissen.de für klinisches Forschungsmanagement und/oder Aktivitäten der medizinischen Fortbildung. S. Y. B. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, MSD, Teva, AstraZeneca. N. D. erhielt Honorare von MSD, Roche, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Gilead, MCI Healthcare. P. A. F. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Celgene, onkowissen.de, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Puma und Teva. Seine Institution betreibt Forschung mit finanzieller Unterstützung von Novartis und BioNtech. T. E. erhielt Honorare von AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Stemline. T. N. F. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Pfizer und Roche und hat Vortragshonorare erhalten von Amgen, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Novartis und Pfizer. A. D. H. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Roche, Novartis, Celgene, Lilly, MSD, Eisai, Teva, Tesaro, Daiichi Sankyo, Hexal und Pfizer. C. C. H. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai und Daiichi Sankyo. H. H. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Novartis. H. N. erhielt Vortragshonorare und/oder Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten vn Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Exact Sciences, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Seagen. W. J. erhielt Forschungsstipendien und/oder Honorare von Sanofi Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Chugai, GSK, Eisai, Cellgene und Johnson & Johnson. H.-C. K. erhielt Honorare von Pfizer, Novartis, Seagen, Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Riemser, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Teva, Theraclion, Janssen-Cilag, GSK, LIV Pharma, Lilly, SurgVision, Onkowissen, Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo and MSD, Reisekostenzuschüsse von Carl Zeiss Meditec, LIV Pharma, Novartis, Amgen, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Tesaro und besitzt Aktien von Theraclion SA und Phaon Scientific GmbH. D. L. erhielt Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, High5md, Gilead, GSK, Loreal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Seagen, Teva. M. P. L. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Exact Sciences, Pierre Fabre, Grünenthal, Daiichi Sankyo, PharmaMar, Roche, SamanTree, Sysmex und Hexal und erhielt Vortragshonorare von MSD, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Exact Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Grünenthal, pfm, Gilead, AstraZeneca und Eisai. V. M. erhielt Sprecherhonorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Pfizer, MSD, Medac, Novartis, Roche, Teva, Seagen, Onkowissen, high5 oncology, Medscape, Gilead. Beraterhonorare von Hexal, Roche, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, ClinSol, Novartis, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, Sanofi, Seagen, Gilead, institutionelle Forschungsförderung von Novartis, Roche, Seagen, Genentech. Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo. B. R. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Roche, Menarini, Lilly, Inivata, Honorare von AZ, Roche. C. R. ist Angestellter der Firma Novartis Deutschland GmbH. A. S. erhielt Forschungsstipendien von Celgene, Roche, Honorare von Amgen, AstraZeneca, Aurikamed, Bayer, Celgene, Clinsol, Connectmedica, Gilead, GSK, I-MED, Lilly, MCI Deutschland, Metaplan, MSD, Nanostring, Novartis, Onkowissen.de, Promedicis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Streamedup, Teva, Tesaro, Thieme und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Celgene, Pfizer, Roche. K. S. erhielt Reisekostenzuschüsse von Gilead und Lilly. F.-A. T. erhielt Sprecher- und Beraterhonorare von AstraZeneca, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Hexal, MSD, Novartis, Onkowissen, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro. H. T. erhielt Honorare von Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Teva, Pfizer, AstraZeneca und Reisekostenzuschüsse von Roche, Celgene und Pfizer. M. T. hat in Beiräten mitgewirkt für AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead Science, Grünenthal, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Seagen und Roche, erhielt Vortragshonorare von Amgen, Aurikamed, Celgene, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Roche, Novartis, Organon, Pfizer, Seagen, Exact Sciences, Viatris, Vifor und AstraZeneca und erhielt Studienfinanzierung von Exact Sciences und Endomag; Unterstützung für das Manuskript kam von Amgen, ClearCut, pfm medical, Roche, Servier, Vifor. M. U. Alle Honorare wurden an die Institution/den Arbeitergeber abgeführt: Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Gilead. P. W. erhielt Honorare von Roche, Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, MSD, Clovis, Tesaro, Celgene, Teva, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen und Eli Lilly. Die anderen Autoren und Autorinnen (L. L. V, M. R., S. H., V. T., I. J.-B., D. A., M. B., M. S., J. R., I. N.) haben keine Interessenkonflikte zu melden., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Pembrolizumab is approved for the neoadjuvant/adjuvant treatment of early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients in combination with chemotherapy. The Keynote-522 trial used platinum chemotherapy. As neoadjuvant nab-paclitaxel (nP) is also highly effective in triple-negative breast cancer patients, this study investigates the response to nP-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab., Patients and Methods: NeoImmunoboost (AGO-B-041/NCT03289819) is a multicenter, prospective single-arm phase II trial. Patients were treated with 12 weekly cycles of nP followed by four three-weekly cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide. Pembrolizumab was given three-weekly in combination with these chemotherapies. The study was planned for 50 patients. After 25 patients, the study was amended to include a pre-chemotherapy single application of pembrolizumab. The primary aim was pathological complete response (pCR), and the secondary aims were safety and quality of life., Results: Of 50 included patients, 33 (66.0%; 95%confidence interval: 51.2%-78.8%) had a (ypT0/is ypN0) pCR. The pCR rate in the per-protocol population (n = 39) was 71.8% (95%confidence interval: 55.1%-85.0%). The most common adverse events of any grade were fatigue (58.5%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (54.7%) and neutropenia (52.8%). The pCR rate in the cohort of 27 patients with a pre-chemotherapy pembrolizumab dose was 59.3%, and 73.9% in the 23 patients without pre-chemotherapy dose., Conclusions: pCR rates after NACT with nP and anthracycline combined with pembrolizumab are encouraging. With acceptable side-effect profiles, this treatment might be a reasonable alternative to platinum-containing chemotherapy in cases of contraindications. However, without data from randomised trials and long-term follow up, platinum/anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy remains the standard combination chemotherapy for pembrolizumab., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

Male breast cancer is an unknown field for many practitioners. Patients often see different doctors before the correct diagnosis is made - often too late. This article is intended to point out risk factors, initiation of diagnostics and therapy. In the dawning age of molecular medicine, we will also take a look at genetics., Competing Interests: Erklärung zu finanziellen Interessen Forschungsförderung erhalten: nein; Honorar/geldwerten Vorteil für Referententätigkeit erhalten: ja, von einer anderen Institution (Pharma- oder Medizintechnikfirma usw.); Bezahlter Berater/interner Schulungsreferent/Gehaltsempfänger: ja, von einer anderen Institution (Pharma- oder Medizintechnikfirma usw.); Patent/Geschäftsanteile/Aktien (Autor/Partner, Ehepartner, Kinder) an im Bereich der Medizin aktiven Firma: nein; Patent/Geschäftsanteile/Aktien (Autor/Partner, Ehepartner, Kinder) an zu Sponsoren dieser Fortbildung bzw. durch die Fortbildung in ihren Geschäftsinteressen berührten Firma: nein. Erklärung zu nichtfinanziellen Interessen Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Erklärung zu finanziellen Interessen Forschungsförderung erhalten: nein; Honorar/geldwerten Vorteil für Referententätigkeit erhalten: ja, von einer anderen Institution (Pharma- oder Medizintechnikfirma usw.); Bezahlter Berater/interner Schulungsreferent/Gehaltsempfänger: ja, von einer anderen Institution (Pharma- oder Medizintechnikfirma usw.); Patent/Geschäftsanteile/Aktien (Autor/Partner, Ehepartner, Kinder) an im Bereich der Medizin aktiven Firma: nein; Patent/Geschäftsanteile/Aktien (Autor/Partner, Ehepartner, Kinder) an zu Sponsoren dieser Fortbildung bzw. durch die Fortbildung in ihren Geschäftsinteressen berührten Firma: nein. Erklärung zu nichtfinanziellen Interessen Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

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

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

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

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

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