Implications for surveillance for breast cancer patients based on the internally and externally validated BRENDA-metastatic recurrence score.

PURPOSE: Although the incidence of distant relapse is decreasing, 20-30% of patients with early breast cancer die of metastasis. The aim of this study is to characterize patients with metastasis-free survival(MFS) less than 5 years, to analyze the most probable site of metastases according to the internally and externally validated BRENDA-score. The BRENDA-score is a combination of the biological subtype and clinical staging. METHOD: 3832 patients with primary diagnosis of breast cancer and either distant metastatic recurrence within 5 years or MFS ≥ 5 years were assigned to this study. Patients were classified for metastatic recurrence according to the BRENDA-score. 1765 patients were in a validation set. Statistical methods were Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression analysis, Exhausted CHAID, likelihood-ratio tests and the Nearest Neighbor Estimation method. RESULTS: There was a significant(p < 0.001) difference between the Kaplan-Meier MFS-functions of M0-patients stratified by BRENDA-score. The BRENDA score outperforms intrinsic subtypes and the Nottingham prognostic score. It fits the original data and the validation set equally well (p = 0.179).There was a significant(p < 0.001) difference between mean BRENDA-Index for patients with MFS < 5y(21.0 ± 9.0) and patients with MFS ≥ 5y(mean BRENDA-Index 11.7 ± 8.2). 55.6% of the very high risk patients(BRENDA-Index ≥ 27) had metastases within 5 years. The most likely primary metastatic site was bone(30%) followed by liver(19%) and lung(18%). The discriminatory ability(areas under the time dependent ROC curve) of the BRENDA score is good to acceptable for the first 5 years. In the very low/low risk (intermediate, high/very high) risk group 50% of all metastases were diagnosed within 26 months. Guideline adherence had a highly significant influence on outcome independent of the risk group. CONCLUSION: The evaluation showed that the BRENDA-Score is a robust predictive tool for breast cancer recurrence and site of metastases in the first five years after diagnosis. It outperforms intrinsic subtypes and the Nottingham prognostic score. The BRENDA-score could be a tool for a risk orientated and targeted follow up.

Guidelines are advantageous, though not essential for improved survival among breast cancer patients.

The purpose of this retrospective multicenter study was to resolve the pseudo-paradox that the clinical outcome of women affected by breast cancer has improved during the last 20 years irrespective of whether they were treated in accordance with clinical guidelines or not. This retrospective German multicenter study included 9061 patients with primary breast cancer recruited from 1991 to 2009. We formed subgroups for the time intervals 1991-2000 (TI1) and 2001-2009 (TI2). In these subgroups, the risk of recurrence (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients whose treatment was either 100% guideline-conforming or, respectively, non-guideline-conforming. The clinical outcome of all patients significantly improved in TI2 compared to TI1 [RFS: p < 0.001, HR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.49-0.67); OS: p < 0.001, HR = 0.76, 95% (CI 0.66-0.87)]. OS and RFS of guideline non-adherent patients also improved in TI2 compared to TI. Comparing risk profiles, determined by Nottingham Prognostic Score reveals a significant (p = 0.001) enhancement in the time cohort TI2. Furthermore, the percentage of guideline-conforming systemic therapy (endocrine therapy and chemotherapy) significantly increased (p < 0.001) in the time cohort TI2 to TI for the non-adherent group. The general improvement of clinical outcome of patients during the last 20 years is also valid in the subgroup of women who received treatments, which deviated from the guidelines. The shift in risk profiles as well as medical advances are major reasons for this improvement. Nevertheless, patients with 100% guideline-conforming therapy always had a better outcome compared to patients with guideline non-adherent therapy.

BRENDA-Score, a Highly Significant, Internally and Externally Validated Prognostic Marker for Metastatic Recurrence: Analysis of 10,449 Primary Breast Cancer Patients.

Background Current research in breast cancer focuses on individualization of local and systemic therapies with adequate escalation or de-escalation strategies. As a result, about two-thirds of breast cancer patients can be cured, but up to one-third eventually develop metastatic disease, which is considered incurable with currently available treatment options. This underscores the importance to develop a metastatic recurrence score to escalate or de-escalate treatment strategies. Patients and methods Data from 10,499 patients were available from 17 clinical cancer registries (BRENDA-project [1]. In total, 8566 were used to develop the BRENDA-Index. This index was calculated from the regression coefficients of a Cox regression model for metastasis-free survival (MFS). Based on this index, patients were categorized into very high, high, intermediate, low, and very low risk groups forming the BRENDA-Score. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation and an independent dataset of 1883 patients for external validation. The predictive accuracy was checked by Harrell's c-index. In addition, the BRENDA-Score was analyzed as a marker for overall survival (OS) and compared to the Nottingham prognostic score (NPS). Results: Intrinsic subtypes, tumour size, grading, and nodal status were identified as statistically significant prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. The five prognostic groups of the BRENDA-Score showed highly significant (p < 0.001) differences regarding MFS:low risk: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.4, 95%CI (1.7-3.3); intermediate risk: HR = 5.0, 95%CI.(3.6-6.9); high risk: HR = 10.3, 95%CI (7.4-14.3) and very high risk: HR = 18.1, 95%CI (13.2-24.9). The external validation showed congruent results. A multivariate Cox regression model for OS with BRENDA-Score and NPS as covariates showed that of these two scores only the BRENDA-Score is significant (BRENDA-Score p < 0.001; NPS p = 0.447). Therefore, the BRENDA-Score is also a good prognostic marker for OS. Conclusion: The BRENDA-Score is an internally and externally validated robust predictive tool for metastatic recurrence in breast cancer patients. It is based on routine parameters easily accessible in daily clinical care. In addition, the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival. Highlights: The BRENDA-Score is a highly significant predictive tool for metastatic recurrence of breast cancer patients. The BRENDA-Score is stable for at least the first five years after primary diagnosis, i.e., the sensitivities and specificities of this predicting system is rather similar to the NPI with AUCs between 0.76 and 0.81 the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival.

Does guideline-adherent therapy improve the outcome for early-onset breast cancer patients?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for the treatment of early-onset breast cancer have been proposed in several countries, but to date, their impact on outcomes is unverified. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between guideline-adherent versus nonadherent treatment and recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OAS) in early-onset breast cancer patients. METHODS: A total of 1,778 patients were included in the study, of whom 111 were 35 years or younger and 1,667 were between 36 and 55 years. RFS and OAS were compared between the two groups, with respect to multiple parameters. All survival data were adjusted for tumor characteristics and analyzed with respect to guideline adherence according to the German Step 3 guidelines. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences between the two groups (<35 years, 36-55 years) were observed with regard to breast surgery (p = 0.002) and hormone therapy (p = 0.006). Both groups were treated identically in terms of guideline adherence concerning axillary dissection (p = 0.9), radiation therapy (p = 0.7) and chemotherapy (p = 0.556). Young breast cancer patients whose treatment adhered to guideline recommendations had increased RFS and OAS [RFS: p = 0.030, hazard ratio (HR) 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-7.83; OAS: p < or = 0.001, HR 2.92, 95% CI 2.01-4.23]. CONCLUSION: Guideline-adherent treatment for early-onset breast cancer patients significantly improves OAS and RFS and should therefore be demanded for all patients.

Impact of guideline conformity on breast cancer therapy: results of a 13-year retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To date, few studies have investigated whether the implementation of national breast cancer guidelines fulfills the goal to optimize the national standard of care. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate retrospectively the guideline-related 13-year data on breast cancer patients treated at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, the records of a total of 2,231 patients with primary breast cancer treated during the period of 1992-2005 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ulm, Germany, were analyzed. Based on the German national Step 3 (S3) guideline, a model was created to classify groups according to therapy 'conforming' and 'non-conforming' to guideline recommendations. RESULTS: In 2005, 70.2% of all patients included received both surgical and systemic adjuvant therapies conforming to the guideline. Guideline-conforming treatment was accompanied with significant advantages in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OAS) rates. CONCLUSIONS: It has to be demanded that breast cancer patients are treated in conformity with the S3 guidelines. The reasons for a treatment not conforming to the guidelines should be analyzed for the detection of barrier factors, in order to optimize adherence to the guidelines and therefore to prolong RFS and OAS.

Clinical criteria replenish high-sensitive troponin and inflammatory markers in the stratification of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), rapid triage is essential. The aim of this study was to establish a tool for risk prediction of 30-day cardiac events (CE) on admission. 30-day cardiac events (CE) were defined as early coronary revascularization, subsequent myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death within 30 days. METHODS AND RESULTS: This single-centre, prospective cohort study included 377 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected ACS and for whom troponin T measurements were requested on clinical grounds. Fifteen biomarkers were analyzed in the admission sample, and clinical parameters were assessed by the TIMI risk score for unstable angina/Non-ST myocardial infarction and the GRACE risk score. Sixty-nine (18%) patients presented with and 308 (82%) without ST-elevations, respectively. Coronary angiography was performed in 165 (44%) patients with subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention--accounting for the majority of CE--in 123 (33%) patients, respectively. Eleven out of 15 biomarkers were elevated in patients with CE compared to those without. High-sensitive troponin T (hs-cTnT) was the best univariate biomarker to predict CE in Non-ST-elevation patients (AUC 0.80), but did not yield incremental information above clinical TIMI risk score (AUC 0.80 vs 0.82, p = 0.69). Equivalence testing of AUCs of risk models and non-inferiority testing demonstrated that the clinical TIMI risk score alone was non-inferior to its combination with hs-cTnT in predicting CE. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting without ST-elevations, identification of those prone to CE is best based on clinical assessment based on TIMI risk score criteria and hs-cTnT.

Survival of patients with bilateral versus unilateral breast cancer and impact of guideline adherent adjuvant treatment: a multi-centre cohort study of 5292 patients.

UNLABELLED: This retrospective multi-centre study is focussed on recurrence free and overall survival of bilateral breast cancer (BBC) versus unilateral breast cancer (UBC). The impact of BBC on survival is stratified to guideline adherence, according to the German national S3-guideline. Another aim of the study is to identify the influence of various guideline violations in adjuvant treatment on survival of BBC patients. 229 (4.3%) patients had BBC and 5063 (95.7%) had UBC. There is a significant association between BBC/UBC and recurrence free (RFS: p < 0.001) and overall survival (OAS: p = 0.003). Only 15.7% of patients with BBC are treated 100% guideline adherent (index- + contralateral tumour). 31.0% (30.5%) were guideline adherent with respect to the index (contralateral) tumour. The outcome decreases significantly with the number of guideline violations. There was no significant difference in RFS and OAS between BBC and UBC after adjusting for tumour size, nodal status, grading and if guideline adherent treatment was applied. CONCLUSION: 1. Patients with BBC have primarily a worse prognosis in terms of RFS and OAS than patients with primarily UBC. 2. There is a strong association between guideline adherence and RFS/OAS of patients with BBC or UBC. The outcome decreases with the number of guideline violations. 3. If guideline adherent treatment was applied (for both tumours in case of BBC) there was no significant difference in RFS and OAS between BBC and UBC after adjusting for tumour size, nodal status, grading.

[Effects of guideline-compliant therapy on the survival of primary breast cancer patients with: results of a retrospective cohort study]. / Auswirkungen leitlinienkonformer Therapie auf das Überleben von Patientinnen mit primärem Mammakarzinom - Ergebnisse einer retrospektiven Kohortenstudie.

PURPOSE: The development and implementation of the "Interdisciplinary S3 Guideline for the Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow-up Care of Breast Cancer" (3) is intended to optimise national health services. This guideline already serves both as a basis for the certification of German breast centres and for the external comparative quality assurance based on guideline based quality indicators. Nevertheless, the effects of the implementation on relevant outcomes have not been examined so far. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study analyses data of 3,976 female patients with primary breast cancer which were collected at the University of Ulm and co-operating certified breast centres between 2001 and 2005. Based on the S3 guideline, an analysis model was developed to allow for the examination of guideline-adherent therapy on the basis of the guideline recommendations, and the effects of guideline-adherent compared to not guideline-adherent therapy on overall (OAS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were examined subsequently. RESULTS: In total, 2,063 (51.9%) of the 3,976 patients were treated in adherence the guideline. In 1,913 (48.1%) patients deviations from the guideline recommendations in at least one of the therapeutic options were found. The variable "guideline-adherent treatment" had significant influence on RFS [p < 0.001; HR=2.20; 95% CI (1.74 to 2.79)] and OAS (p < 0.001; HR=2.57; 95% CI (1.96 to 3.37)], each adjusted for age, tumour size, nodal status and grading. RFS decreases with the number of deviations from guideline recommendations [1 to 2 deviations: p < 0.001; HR=2.04; 95% CI (1.60 to 2.60); ≥ 3 deviations: p < 0.001; HR=3.64; 95% CI (2.43 to 5.45), also adjusted for age, tumour size, nodal status and grading]. Similar results were found for the OAS. CONCLUSION: Patients with breast cancer should be treated in adherence to guideline recommendations. Deviations and barrier factors will have to be evaluated in the future in order to further optimise both the guideline and guideline-adherent therapy.

Effects of guideline adherence in primary breast cancer--a 5-year multi-center cohort study of 3976 patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of that study was to analyze the impact of German-S3-breast cancer guideline adherence on clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective study analyzed 3976 patients first diagnosed with primary breast cancer according to an S3-guideline-based model that classified patients retrospectively into groups receiving "guideline-adherent and "guideline non-adherent" therapy. RESULTS: There was a significant association between treatment adherence and prolonged recurrence free and overall survival (p = 0.0001). The greater the number of violations in guideline adherence, the lower was overall survival (p = 0.0001). Advanced age at initial diagnosis was additionally associated with a reduction in guideline adherence. The percentage of guideline adherence for the therapeutic modalities BCT, mastectomy, axillary dissection and hormone therapy was greater than 80%. For chemotherapy, the percent of guideline adherence totaled 71.4%. CONCLUSION: Therapies dispensed in adherence with guidelines may improve recurrence-free survival and overall survival in patients with breast cancer.