Download PDF
TumorDiagnostik & Therapie 2015; 36(04): 213-225
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1399703
Thieme Onkologie aktuell
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Mammakarzinom Update 2014 – Die Patientin und der Tumor im Mittelpunkt

Breast Cancer Update 2014 – Focus on the Patient and the Tumour
N. Maass
1   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen
,
F. Schütz
2   Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg
,
P. A. Fasching
3   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen
,
T. Fehm
4   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
,
W. Janni
5   Frauenklinik, Klinikum der Universität Ulm, Ulm
,
S. Kümmel
6   Brustzentrum, Kliniken Essen Mitte, Evang. Huyssens-Stiftung/Knappschaft GmbH, Essen
,
H.-C. Kolberg
7   Klinik für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe, Marienhospital Bottrop, Bottrop
,
D. Lüftner
8   Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin
,
M. Wallwiener
2   Frauenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg
,
M. P. Lux
3   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, Erlangen
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
15 June 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Therapie von Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom hat sich in den letzten 10 Jahren deutlich weiterentwickelt. Das Verständnis um die molekulare Biologie der Tumoren und Patientinneneigenschaften haben die jüngsten Entwicklungen geprägt. In diesem Review werden die neuesten Erkenntnisse zur Therapie des Mammakarzinoms dargestellt. Hierbei gibt es sowohl auf dem Gebiet der Anti-HER2-Therapie als auch bei der Behandlung von triple-negativen und hormonrezeptorpositiven Patientinnen neue Tests und Therapien. Das Verständnis um Prognose und Therapieansprechen auf Chemotherapien definiert nach und nach Patientinnengruppen, die nicht auf eine Chemotherapie ansprechen oder die keine Therapie benötigen, weil die Prognose außerordentlich gut ist. Auf dem Gebiet der Anti-HER2-Therapie wird weiterhin an Medikamenten gearbeitet, die bei einer Trastuzumab-Resistenz geeignet sind, diese zu überwinden. Für hormonrezeptorpositive Karzinome wird besser verstanden, welche Therapiegruppen von welchen antiendokrinen Medikamenten profitieren, und welche eine eventuelle Resistenz überwinden können (Behandlung des PI3K-Pathways, Inhibition des Zellzyklus). Molekulare Tests befinden sich weiterhin in der Evaluation, in welchen klinischen Situationen sie den größten Nutzen für Therapieentscheidungen bringen können, jedoch wächst die Evidenz, in welchen Bereichen eine gute Aussage über die Prognose gewonnen werden kann. Insgesamt muss daran gearbeitet werden, das Verständnis für die neuen Entwicklungen in Diagnostik und Therapie zu fördern und Ärzte und Patientinnen gleichermaßen in die Ausbildung mit einzubeziehen.

Abstract

The therapy for patients with breast cancer has developed markedly in the past ten years. Our understanding of the molecular biology of tumours and the characteristics of the patients has shaped the recent advances. In this review we present the latest knowledge about the therapy for breast cancer. There are new tests and options not only in the field of anti-HER2 therapy but also in the management of triple negative and hormone receptor-positive patients. Comprehension of prognosis and therapeutic response to chemotherapies is little by little helping to define patient groups who will not respond to chemotherapy or who do not need treatment because their prognosis is extremely good. In the field of anti-HER2 therapy, work is continuing on the development of drugs suitable for and able to overcome trastuzumab resistance. For hormone receptor-positive cancers, we now have a better understanding of which therapy groups will benefit from which anti-endocrine drugs, and which will be able to overcome a possible resistance (treatment of the PI3K pathways, inhibition of the cell cycle). Molecular tests are still being evaluated with regard to the clinical situations in which they may have the greatest relevance for therapeutic decision-making; however, evidence is also increasing as to the fields in which good predictions for the prognosis can be obtained. On the whole, more work is needed to promote our understanding of the new developments in diagnostics and therapy and to involve both physicians and patients equally in the procedures.

Schlüsselwörter

Mammakarzinom - Chemotherapie - Hormontherapie

Key words

breast cancer - chemotherapy - hormonal therapy
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Schmidt M, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW et al. Biomarkers in breast cancer – an update. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2012; 72: 819-832
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sinn P, Aulmann S, Wirtz R et al. Multigene assays for classification, prognosis, and prediction in breast cancer: a critical review on the background and clinical utility. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 932-940
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Eisemann N, Waldmann A, Katalinic A. Epidemiology of breast cancer – current figures and trends. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 130-135
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Huober J, von Minckwitz G, Denkert C et al. Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 124: 133-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lux MP, Maass N, Schütz F et al. Breast cancer 2013 – interpretation of new and known data. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 584-598
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 1796-1804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384: 164-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Haeberle L et al. Ki67, chemotherapy response, and prognosis in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Paluch-Shimon S, Friedman E, Berger R et al. Does pathologic complete response predict for outcome in BRCA mutation carriers with triple-negative breast cancer?. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (Suppl.) Abstr. 1023
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kummel S, Holtschmidt J, Loibl S. Surgical treatment of primary breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting. Br J Surg 2014; 101: 912-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Petrelli F, Coinu A, Borgonovo K et al. The value of platinum agents as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 144: 223-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A, Loibl S et al. Neoadjuvant carboplatin in patients with triple-negative and HER2-positive early breast cancer (GeparSixto; GBG 66): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 747-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 von Minckwitz G, Hahnen E, Fasching PA et al. Pathological complete response (pCR) rates after carboplatin-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): Results from GeparSixto. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (Suppl.) Abstr. 1023
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3351-3357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gradishar WJ, Krasnojon D, Cheporov S et al. Significantly longer progression-free survival with nab-paclitaxel compared with docetaxel as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 3611-3619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Earl HM, Vallier AL, Hiller L et al. Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 201-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kommission Mamma der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO-Mamma). Diagnosis and treatment of patients with primary and metastatic breast cancer. http://www.ago-online.de/en/guidelines-mamma/march-2014/ aktualisiert 28.03.2014 (letzter Zugriff 11.03.2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV et al. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011; 305: 569-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 609-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 2013; 310: 1455-1461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fitzal F, Filipits M, Fesl C et al. Predicting local recurrence using PAM50 in postmenopausal endocrine responsive breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (Suppl.) Abstract 1008
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 5222-5232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Prat A, Parker JS, Fan C et al. PAM50 assay and the three-gene model for identifying the major and clinically relevant molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135: 301-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Martín M, Prat A, Rodríguez-Lescure A et al. PAM50 proliferation score as a predictor of weekly paclitaxel benefit in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 138: 457-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Filipits M, Rudas M, Jakesz R. EP Investigators et al. A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 6012-6020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Denkert C, Kronenwett R, Schlake W et al. Decentral gene expression analysis for ER+/Her2- breast cancer: results of a proficiency testing program for the EndoPredict assay. Virchows Arch 2012; 460: 251-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dubsky P, Filipits M, Jakesz R et al. EndoPredict improves the prognostic classification derived from common clinical guidelines in ER-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 640-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fitzal F, Filipits MF, Rudas M et al. Tailoring local therapy in post-menopausal endocrine responsive HER2neu negative breast cancer patients based on their genetic risk profile using Endopredict. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50: S97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S et al. Impact of premenopausal status at breast cancer diagnosis in women entered on the placebo-controlled NCIC CTG MA17 trial of extended adjuvant letrozole. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 355-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF. International Breast Cancer Study Group et al. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 436-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Pagani O, Regan MM, Walley BA et al. Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 107-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Regan MM, Pagani O, Fleming GF et al. Adjuvant treatment of premenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer: design of the TEXT and SOFT trials. Breast 2013; 22: 1094-1100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF et al. Randomized comparison of adjuvant tamoxifen (T) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) early breast cancer (BC): analysis of the SOFT trial. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S3-08
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 von Minckwitz G, Reimer T, Potenberg J et al. S3-04 The phase III ICE study: adjuvant ibandronate with or without capecitabine in elderly patients with moderate or high risk early breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Samuel JA, Wilson JW, Bandos H et al. NSABP B-36: a randomized phase III trial comparing six cycles of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) to four cycles of adriamycin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in patients (pts) with node-negative breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S3-02
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sparano JA, Zhao F, Martino S et al. Ten year update of E1199: phase III study of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel given every 3 weeks or weekly in patients with axillary node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S3-03
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Twelves C, Nasim MY, Anthoney A et al. Efficacy and safety of eribulin in combination with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an open-label, phase II dose-confirmation study. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 P3–13-04
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Blum JL, Dieras V, Lo Russo PM et al. Multicenter, phase II study of capecitabine in taxane-pretreated metastatic breast carcinoma patients. Cancer 2001; 92: 1759-1768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Vahdat LT, Pruitt B, Fabian CJ et al. Phase II study of eribulin mesylate, a halichondrin B analog, in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2954-2961
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Untch M, von Minckwitz G, Konecny GE et al. PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer–outcome on prognosis. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1999-2006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE et al. PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel ± darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer–results at the time of surgery. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1988-1998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bohlius J, Schmidlin K, Brillant C et al. Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer–meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 3 CD007303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Aapro M, Moebus V, Nitz U et al. Safety and efficacy outcomes with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 2014; DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu579.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Leyland-Jones B, Bondarenko I, Nemsadze G et al. A randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study of epoetin alfa (EPO) plus standard supportive care versus standard supportive care in anemic patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving standard chemotherapy. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S5-07
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Couch FJ, Hart SN, Sharma P et al. Inherited mutations in 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes among a large triple-negative breast cancer cohort unselected for family history of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.1414.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Fasching PA, Ekici AB, Wachter DL et al. Breast cancer risk – from genetics to molecular understanding of pathogenesis. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2013; 73: 1228-1235
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Tutt A, Ellis P, Kilburn L et al. The TNT trial: a randomized phase III trial of carboplatin(C) compared with docetaxel (D) for patients with metastatic or recurrent locally advanced triple negative or BRCA1/2 breast cancer (CRUK/07/012). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S3-01
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Litton JK, Blum JL, Eiermann W et al. A phase 3, open-label, randomized, parallel, 2-arm multi-center study of the oral PARP inhibitor BMN 673 versus physicianʼs choice in germline BRCA mutation subjects with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACA study). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 OT1-1–12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Turner NC, Balmana J, Domcheck SM et al. A phase 2, 2-stage, 2-cohort study of the oral PARP inhibitor BMN 673 in patients withgermline BRCA mutation and locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (ABRAZO study). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 OT1-1–14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Fasching PA, Brucker SY, Fehm TN et al. Biomarkers in patients with metastatic breast cancer and the PRAEGNANT study network. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2015; 75: 41-50
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Fruman DA, Rommel C. PI3K and cancer: lessons, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014; 13: 140-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Fu X, Osborne CK, Schiff R. Biology and therapeutic potential of PI3K signaling in ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer. Breast 2013; 22 (Suppl. 02) S12-S18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Choi YJ, Anders L. Signaling through cyclin D-dependent kinases. Oncogene 2014; 33: 1890-1903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Finn RS, Dering J, Conklin D et al. PD 0332991, a selective cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitor, preferentially inhibits proliferation of luminal estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer cell lines in vitro. Breast Cancer Res 2009; 11: R77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Finn RS, Crown JP, Lang I et al. The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 25-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Rocca A, Farolfi A, Bravaccini S et al. Palbociclib (PD 0332991): targeting the cell cycle machinery in breast cancer. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2014; 15: 407-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Patnaik A, Rosen LS, Tolaney SM et al. LY2835219, a novel cell cycle inhibitor selective for CDK4/6, in combination with fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (Suppl.) Abstract 534
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Munster PN, Hamilton EP, Franklin C et al. Phase lb study of LEE011 and BYL719 in combination with letrozole in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (ER+, HER2− BC). J Clin Oncol 2014; 32 (Suppl.) Abstract 533
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Junttila TT, Li J, Johnston J et al. HER2 T cell dependent bispecific antibody (HER2-́TDB) for treatment of HER2 positive breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S1-07
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Swain SM, Kim S, Cortes J et al. Final overall survival (OS) analysis from the CLEOPATRA study of first-line (1L) pertuzumab (Ptz), trastuzumab (t), and docetacel (D) in patients (pts) with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). European Society of Medical Oncology Meeting (ESMO); 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Hurvitz SA, Andre F, Jiang Z et al. Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of daily everolimus plus weekly trastuzumab and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in women with HER2+ advanced breast cancer: BOLERO-1. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S6-01
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Korkola JE, Liu M, Liby T et al. Detrimental effects of sequential compared to concurrent treatment of pertuzumab plus T-DM1 in HER2+ breast cancer cell lines. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S6-07
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Ali HR, Provenzano E, Dawson SJ et al. Association between CD8+ T-cell infiltration and breast cancer survival in 12,439 patients. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 1536-1543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Denkert C, von Minckwitz G, Brase JC et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without carboplatin in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative primary breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 2014; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.1967.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Sommerfeldt N, Schütz F, Sohn C et al. The shaping of a polyvalent and highly individual T-cell repertoire in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 8258-8265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Muenst S, Schaerli AR, Gao F et al. Expression of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is associated with poor prognosis in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 146: 15-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Robert C, Long GV, Brady B et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 320-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Milani A, Sangiolo D, Aglietta M et al. Recent advances in the development of breast cancer vaccines. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2014; 6: 159-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Nitz U, Gluz O, Kates RE et al. Prognostic impact of discordance between different risk assessment tools in early breast cancer (recurrence score, central grade, Ki67): early outcome analysis from the prospective phase III WSG-PlanB trial. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 P4-11-01 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012; 490: 61-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 2012; 486: 346-352
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Schneeweiss A et al. PIK3CA mutations are associated with lower rates of pathologic complete response to anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy in primary HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 3212-3220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Baselga J, Piccart M, Gnant M et al. Minimal molecular alteration in PI3KCA, FGFR1 and CCND1 is associated with increased benefit from everolimus in hormone receptor-positive, HER2-advanced breast cancer: Insights from the BOLERO-2 trial. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: S404
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Ellis MJ, Ding L, Shen D et al. Whole-genome analysis informs breast cancer response to aromatase inhibition. Nature 2012; 486: 353-360
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Shah SP, Roth A, Goya R et al. The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers. Nature 2012; 486: 395-399
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Lakhani SR, Reis-Filho JS, Fulford L et al. Prediction of BRCA1 status in patients with breast cancer using estrogen receptor and basal phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 5175-5180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Stevens KN, Vachon CM, Lee AM et al. Common breast cancer susceptibility loci are associated with triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 6240-6249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Stevens KN, Fredericksen Z, Vachon CM et al. 19p13.1 is a triple negative-specific breast cancer susceptibility locus. Cancer Res 2012; 72: 1795-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Purrington KS, Slager S, Eccles D et al. Genome-wide association study identifies 25 known breast cancer susceptibility loci as risk factors for triple negative breast cancer. Carcinogenesis 2014; 35: 1012-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Garcia-Closas M, Couch FJ, Lindstrom S et al. Genome-wide association studies identify four ER negative-specific breast cancer risk loci. Nat Genet 2013; 45: 392-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Broeks A, Schmidt MK, Sherman ME et al. Low penetrance breast cancer susceptibility loci are associated with specific breast tumor subtypes: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Hum Mol Genet 2011; 20: 3289-3303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Figueroa JD, Garcia-Closas M, Humphreys M et al. Associations of common variants at 1p11.2 and 14q24.1 (RAD51L1) with breast cancer risk and heterogeneity by tumor subtype: findings from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Hum Mol Genet 2011; 20: 4693-4706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 French JD, Ghoussaini M, Edwards SL et al. Functional variants at the 11q13 risk locus for breast cancer regulate cyclin D1 expression through long-range enhancers. Am J Hum Genet 2013; 92: 489-503
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Antoniou AC, Wang X, Fredericksen ZS et al. A locus on 19p13 modifies risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers and is associated with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer in the general population. Nat Genet 2010; 42: 885-892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Bolton KL, Tyrer J, Song H et al. Common variants at 19p13 are associated with susceptibility to ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 2010; 42: 880-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Fasching PA, Gayther S, Pearce L. OCAC (Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium) et al. Role of genetic polymorphisms and ovarian cancer susceptibility. Mol Oncol 2009; 3: 171-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Azzato EM, Tyrer J, Fasching PA et al. Association between a germline OCA2 polymorphism at chromosome 15q13.1 and estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 650-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Fasching PA, Loehberg CR, Strissel PL et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms of the aromatase gene (CYP19A1), HER2/neu status, and prognosis in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 112: 89-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Fasching PA, Pharoah PD, Cox A et al. The role of genetic breast cancer susceptibility variants as prognostic factors. Hum Mol Genet 2012; 21: 3926-3939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Weischer M, Nordestgaard BG, Pharoah P et al. CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity in women with breast cancer associated with early death, breast cancer-specific death, and increased risk of a second breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 4308-4316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Robson M, Tutt A, Balmaña J et al. OlympiA, Neo-Olympia and OlympiAD: Randomized phase III trials of olaparib in patients (pts) with breast cancer (BC) and a germline BRCA1/2 mutation (gBRCAm). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 OT1-1-04
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Bidard FC, Peeters DJ, Fehm T et al. Clinical validity of circulating tumour cells in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 406-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Cristofanilli M, Budd GT, Ellis MJ et al. Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 781-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Müller V, Riethdorf S, Rack B. DETECT study group et al. Prognostic impact of circulating tumor cells assessed with the CellSearch System™ and AdnaTest Breast™ in metastatic breast cancer patients: the DETECT study. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14: R118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Wallwiener M, Hartkopf AD, Baccelli I et al. The prognostic impact of circulating tumor cells in subtypes of metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 137: 503-510
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Rack B, Schindlbeck C, Jückstock J et al. Circulating tumor cells predict survival in early average-to-high risk breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; DOI: 10.1093/jnci/dju066.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Fehm T, Becker S, Duerr-Stoerzer S et al. Determination of HER2 status using both serum HER2 levels and circulating tumor cells in patients with recurrent breast cancer whose primary tumor was HER2 negative or of unknown HER2 status. Breast Cancer Res 2007; 9: R74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Fehm T, Müller V, Aktas B et al. HER2 status of circulating tumor cells in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a prospective, multicenter trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 124: 403-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Albrecht S, Schochter F, Melcher C et al. DETECT III – a multicenter, randomized, phase III trial to assess efficacy of lapatinib in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Oncol Res Treat 2014; 37: 29-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Hagenbeck C, Melcher CA, Janni JW et al. DETECT III: a multicenter, randomized, phase III study to compare standard therapy alone versus standard therapy plus lapatinib in patients (pts) with initially HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer but with HER2-positive circulating tumor cells (CTC). J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 Abstract TPS1146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 101 Melcher C, Schochter F, Albrecht S et al. DETECT IV – a multicenter, single arm, phase II study evaluating the efficacy of Everolimus in combination with endocrine therapy in patients with HER2-negative, hormone-receptor positive metastatic breast cancer and exclusively HER2-negative circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Oncol Res Treat 2014; 37: 29-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 102 Melcher CA, Janni W, Rack B et al. DETECT III – a multicenter, randomized, phase III study to compare standard therapy alone versus standard therapy plus lapatinib in patients with initially HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and HER2-positive circulating tumor cells. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48: S95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 103 Dixon JM, Turnbull AK, Fan C et al. In-depth genomic analysis of ER+ breast cancers during development of endocrine resistance. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S1-05
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 104 Rothé F, Laes JF, Lambrechts D et al. Plasma circulating tumor DNA as an alternative to metastatic biopsies for mutational analysis in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2014; 25: 1959-1965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 105 Smith A. Cell Internet use 2012. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Online: 2012 Stand: 26.06.2012 http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Cell_Phone_Internet_Access.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 106 Eysenbach G. What is e-health?. J Med Internet Res 2001; 3: E20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Clarke G, Eubanks D, Reid E et al. Overcoming Depression on the Internet (ODIN) (2): a randomized trial of a self-help depression skills program with reminders. J Med Internet Res 2005; 7: e16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Axén I, Bodin L, Bergström G et al. The use of weekly text messaging over 6 months was a feasible method for monitoring the clinical course of low back pain in patients seeking chiropractic care. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65: 454-461
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Yap KY, Low HX, Koh KS et al. Feasibility and acceptance of a pharmacist-run tele-oncology service for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in ambulatory cancer patients. Telemed J E Health 2013; 19: 387-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Schäffeler N, Pfeiffer K, Grischke EM et al. Acceptance and reliability of an electronic psychooncological screening of patients with breast cancer: a randomized controlled study. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2013; 63: 374-380
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Judson TJ, Bennett AV, Rogak LJ et al. Feasibility of long-term patient self-reporting of toxicities from home via the Internet during routine chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 2580-2585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 112 Due J, Christensen HG, Vestlev PM et al. Treatment adverse effect registration. A PC based electronic patient – hospital communication portal that allows registration of adverse effects of chemotherapy and returns advice and recommandations for action. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 P2-10-02
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 520-529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Bachelot T, Bourgier C, Cropet C et al. Randomized phase II trial of everolimus in combination with tamoxifen in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer with prior exposure to aromatase inhibitors: a GINECO study. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2718-2724
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 115 André F, OʼRegan R, Ozguroglu M et al. Everolimus for women with trastuzumab-resistant, HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer (BOLERO-3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 580-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 116 Rugo HS, Tredan O, Ro J et al. Results from the phase 2 trial of ridaforolimus, dalotuzumab, and exemestane compared to ridaforolimus and exemestane in advanced breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 PD5-1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Mayer IA, Abramson VG, Isakoff SJ et al. Stand up to cancer phase Ib study of pan-phosphoinositide-3-kinase inhibitor buparlisib with letrozole in estrogen receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 1202-1209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Ma CX, Luo J, Naughton M et al. A phase I study of BKM120 and fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor positive metastatic breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 PD5–6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Krop I, Johnston S, Mayer IA et al. The FERGI phase II study of the PI3K inhibitor pictilisib (GDC-0941) plus fulvestrant vs. fulvestrant plus placebo in patients with ER+, aromatase inhibitor (AI)- resistant advanced or metastatic breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 S2-02
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 120 Janku F, Juric D, Cortes J et al. Phase I study of the PI3Kα inhibitor BYL719 plus fulvestrant in patients with PIK3CA-altered and wild type ER+/HER2- locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 PD5-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 121 Shah PD, Moynahan ME, Modi S et al. Phase I trial: PI3Kα inhibitor BYL719 plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2014 PD5-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar