Outcome analysis of primary breast cancer patients who declined adjuvant chemotherapy-results from the prospective multi-center BRENDA II study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined 5-year overall, recurrence and distant metastasis-free survival (OS, RFS, MFS) of high- and intermediate-risk breast cancer (BC) patients who declined guideline-recommended adjuvant chemotherapy (CHT). METHODS: In the prospective multicenter cohort study BRENDA II, patients with primary BC were sampled over a period of four years (2009-2012). A multi-professional team (tumorboard) discussed recommendation for adjuvant CHT according to the German guideline. Potential differences in 5 year survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression. The hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted for age, Charlson Comorbidity Score, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status classification, and endocrine therapy. RESULTS: A total of 759 patients were enrolled of which 688 could receive CHT according to the guidelines (n = 219 had a clear indication, in n = 304 it was possible). For 360 patients, the tumorboard advised to perform CHT, for 304 it advised against and in 24 cases, no decision was documented. Of those with a positive suggestion, 83% received CHT. Until 5 years after diagnosis, 57 patients were deceased, 41 had at least one distant metastasis and 29 a recurrence. There was no evidence for differences in OS and MFS in patients who declined CHT despite tumorboard recommendation (HR 3.5, 95% CI 0.8-15.1 for OS, HR 1.9, 95% 0.6-6.6 for MFS). Patients who received CHT had significantly better 5-year RFS compared to those who declined (HR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9, p = 0.03). There was no evidence for different survival in those who had no CHT because of comorbidity and those who declined actively, neither for OS, MFS nor RFS. CONCLUSION: The prospective BRENDA II study demonstrates benefit in RFS by guideline adherence in adjuvant breast cancer treatment, indicating prospectively the value of internationally validated guidelines in breast cancer care.

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.

Assessment of Quality of Life in Postmenopausal Women with Early Breast Cancer Participating in the PACT Trial: The Impact of Additional Patient Information Material Packages and Patient Compliance.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients' self-understanding of their disease can impact their quality of life (QoL); the relationship between compliance and QoL is poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Patient's Anastrozole Compliance to Therapy (PACT) program, a prospective, randomized study, investigated the effect of additional patient information material (IM) packages on compliance with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. The QoL subanalysis presented here examined the impact of IM packages on QoL and the association between QoL and compliance. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires were completed at baseline, 12 and 24 months, or study termination to assess health-related QoL and disease-related symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 4,844 patients randomized to standard therapy or standard therapy + IM packages (1:1), 4,253 were available for QoL analysis. No difference in QoL was observed between groups at baseline. IM packages did not have a statistically significant impact on patient QoL at the 12- or 24-month follow-up. Compliant patients experienced improvement in multiple items across the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 scales at 12 months. However, those results should be interpreted carefully due to limitations in the statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of IM packages did not influence patients' QoL or satisfaction with care during AI therapy. Compliant patients appear to experience improved QoL compared to noncompliant patients, perhaps indicating a more self-empowered perception of their condition.

Effect of adjuvant radiotherapy in elderly patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) is of critical importance in the locoregional management of early breast cancer. Although RT is routinely used following breast conserving surgery (BCS), patients may occasionally be effectively treated with BCS alone. Currently, the selection of patients undergoing BCS who do not need breast irradiation is under investigation. With the advancement of personalized medicine, there is an increasing interest in reduction of aggressive treatments especially in older women. The primary objective of this study was to identify elderly patients who may forego breast irradiation after BCS without measurable consequences on local tumor growth and survival. METHODS: We analyzed 2384 early breast cancer patients aged 70 and older who were treated in 17 German certified breast cancer centers between 2001 and 2009. We compared RT versus no RT after guideline adherent (GA) BCS. The outcomes studied were breast cancer recurrence (RFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Low-risk patients were defined by luminal A, tumor size T1 or T2 and node-negative whereas higher-risk patients were defined by patients with G3 or T3/T4 or node-positive or other than Luminal A tumors. To test if there is a difference between two or more survival curves, we used the Gp family of tests of Harrington and Fleming. RESULTS: The median age was 77 yrs (mean 77.6±5.6 y) and the median observation time 46 mths (mean 48.9±24.8 mths). 950 (39.8%) patients were low-risk and 1434 (60.2%) were higher-risk. 1298 (54.4%) patients received GA BCS of which 85.0% (1103) received GA-RT and only 15% (195) did not. For low-risk patients with GA-BCS there were no significant differences in RFS (log rank p = 0.651) and in BCSS (p = 0.573) stratified by GA-RT. 5 years RFS in both groups were > 97%. For higher-risk patients with GA-BCS we found a significant difference (p<0.001) in RFS and tumor-associated OS stratified by GA-RT. The results remain the same after adjusting by adjuvant systemic treatment (AST) and comorbidity (ASA and NYHA). CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 70 years and older suffering from low-risk early breast cancer with GA-BCS can avoid breast irradiation with <3% chance of relapse. In the case of higher-risk, breast irradiation should be used routinely following GA-BCS. As a side effect of these results, removing the entire breast of elderly low risk patients to spare them from breast irradiation seems to be not necessary.

Survivors of primary breast cancer 5 years after surgery: follow-up care, long-term problems, and treatment regrets. Results of the prospective BRENDA II-study.

PURPOSE: This study aims to answer the questions where breast cancer patients in Germany receive follow-up care (with what types of doctors) and what are the long-term problems and treatment regrets of breast cancer patients. METHODS: In the prospective multicenter cohort study BRENDA II ("Breast Cancer under Evidence-Based Guidelines"), 456 patients with primary breast cancer were sampled consecutively over a period of 4 years (2009-2012) and contacted again 5 years after surgery. Long-term problems were elicited on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 ('not at all') to 3 ('very much'). RESULTS: 82% of the patients receive follow-up (FU) at the private practice gynecologist. In 22%, the initial treating hospital is involved in the FU, and in 20% the general practitioner does this (multiple answers possible). Long-term problems attributed to the treatment were most often related to endocrine therapy (mean 1.29) and to chemotherapy (mean 0.94). Most of the patients were happy to have had radiotherapy (95%). For chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and antibody therapy, the satisfaction for the treatment decision was 87%, 87%, and 84% respectively. Among patients who reported they regretted having undergone a recommended treatment, it was most often for endocrine therapy (5%) and chemotherapy (4%). CONCLUSION: In Germany, different specialists are involved in the patients' FU care for BC. The detection of long-term problems due to BC treatment is an essential part of FU care.

Does chemotherapy improve survival in patients with nodal positive luminal A breast cancer? A retrospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: In this study based on the BRENDA data, we investigated the impact of endocrine ± chemotherapy for luminal A, nodal positive breast cancer on recurrence free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). In addition, we analysed if tumor size of luminal A breast cancer influences survival in patients with the same number of positive lymph nodes. METHODS: In this retrospective multi-centre cohort study data of 1376 nodal-positive patients with primary diagnosis of luminal A breast cancer during 2001-2008 were analysed. The results were stratified by therapy and adjusted by age, tumor size and number of affected lymph nodes. RESULTS: In our study population, patients had a good to excellent prognosis (5-year RFS: 91% and tumorspecific 5-year OS 96.5%). There was no significant difference in RFS stratified by patients with only endocrine therapy and with endocrine plus chemo-therapy. Patients with 1-3 affected lymph nodes had no significant differences in OS treated only with endocrine therapy or with endocrine plus chemotherapy, independent of tumor size. Patients with large tumors and more than 3 affected lymph nodes had a significant worse survival as compared to the small tumors. However, despite the worse prognosis of those, adjuvant chemotherapy failed in order to improve RFS. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, nodal positive patients with luminal A breast cancer have, if any, a limited benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. Tumor size and nodal status seem to be of prognostic value in terms of survival, however both tumor size as well as nodal status were not predictive for a benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy.

[Medicine and Economy: Measures for a Science Based, Patient-Centred and Resource Conscious Care. The Association of Scientific Medical Societies' (AWMF) Strategy Paper]. / Medizin und Ökonomie: Maßnahmen für eine wissenschaftlich begründete, patientenzentrierte und ressourcenbewusste Versorgung. Ein Strategiepapier der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF).

The AWMF and its medical societies perceive an increasing dominance of economic targets in the hospital health care sector, leading to impairment of patient care. While resource use in health care should be appropriate, efficient and fairly allocated, "economization" creates a burdensome situation for physicians, nurses and other health care professionals.The AMWF and the medical societies studied causes and developed measures for a scientific, patient-centred and resource-conscious medical care. Disincentives due to the remuneration system, number and equipment of hospitals resp. specialist departments and their basic funding need to be overcome. Proposed actions relate to the patient-doctor-level, the management level of hospitals and the level of planning and financing hospitals including compensation of hospital care. To place patients and their health in the forefront again, joint efforts of all stakeholders in health care are needed.

Association between cognitive impairment and guideline adherence for application of chemotherapy in older patients with breast cancer: Results from the prospective multicenter BRENDA II study.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the association between cognitive impairment and guideline adherence for application of chemotherapy in older patients with breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the prospective multicenter cohort study BRENDA II, patients aged ≥65 years with primary breast cancer were sampled over a period of 4 years (2009-2012). A multiprofessional team (tumor board) discussed recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy according to the German S3 guideline. Cognitive impairment was screened by the clock-drawing test (CDT) prior to adjuvant treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-three patients were included in the study and CDT data were available for 193 patients. Thirty-one percent of the patients had cognitive impairment with different degree of severity. In high-risk patients (n = 61) tumor board recommendation in favor of chemotherapy was 90% and in intermediate-risk patients (n = 170) 27%. Not receiving recommendation for chemotherapy in spite of guideline recommendation was more frequent in patients with cognitive impairment (67%) vs patients without cognitive impairment (46%) with P = 0.02 (OR 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.9). Age, education, migration background and comorbidities were not associated with chemotherapy recommendation by the tumor board among cognitively impaired patients. Once the tumor board had recommended chemotherapy, application of chemotherapy was similar in both groups of patients with or without cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Almost one third of older patients with breast cancer are affected by cognitive impairment prior to adjuvant treatment. In these patients, cognitive impairment was associated with tumor board decision against chemotherapy in spite of a positive guideline recommendation.

Does the number of removed axillary lymphnodes in high risk breast cancer patients influence the survival?

BACKGROUND: The decision making process for axillary dissection has changed in recent years for patients with early breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph nodes (LN). The question now arises, what is the optimal surgical treatment for patients with positive axillary LN (pN+). This article tries to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a survival benefit for breast cancer patients with 3 or more positive LN (pN3+) and with more than 10 removed LN? (2) Is there a survival benefit for high risk breast cancer patients (triple negative or Her2 + breast cancer) and with 3 or more positive LN (pN3+) with more than 10 removed LN? (3) In pN + patients is the prognostic value of the lymph node ratio (LNR) of pN+/pN removed impaired if 10 or less LN are removed? METHODS: A retrospective database analysis of the multi center cohort database BRENDA (breast cancer under evidence based guidelines) with data from 9625 patients from 17 breast centers was carried out. Guideline adherence was defined by the 2008 German National consensus guidelines. RESULTS: 2992 out of 9625 patients had histological confirmed positive lymph nodes. The most important factors for survival were intrinsic sub types, tumor size and guideline adherent chemo- and hormonal treatment (and age at diagnosis for overall survival (OAS)). Uni-and multivariable analyses for recurrence free survival (RFS) and OAS showed no significant survival benefit when removing more than 10 lymph nodes even for high-risk patients. The mean and median of LNR were significantly higher in the pN+ patients with ≤10 excised LN compared to patients with > 10 excised LN. LNR was in both, uni-and multivariable, analysis a highly significant prognostic factor for RFS and OAS in both subgroups of pN + patients with less respective more than 10 excised LN. Multivariable COX regression analysis was adjusted by age, tumor size, intrinsic sub types and guideline adherent adjuvant systemic therapy. CONCLUSION: The removal of more than 10 LN did not result in a significant survival benefit even in high risk pN + breast cancer patients.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 2 with Recommendations for the Therapy of Primary, Recurrent and Advanced Breast Cancer.

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Method The process of updating the S3 guideline published in 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines. They were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and with the results of a systematic search of literature databases followed by the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point and used them to develop suggestions for recommendations and statements, which were then modified and graded in a structured consensus process procedure. Recommendations Part 2 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the therapy of primary, recurrent and metastatic breast cancer. Loco-regional therapies are de-escalated in the current guideline. In addition to reducing the safety margins for surgical procedures, the guideline also recommends reducing the radicality of axillary surgery. The choice and extent of systemic therapy depends on the respective tumor biology. New substances are becoming available, particularly to treat metastatic breast cancer.

Interdisciplinary Screening, Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Breast Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG and the DKG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/045OL, December 2017) - Part 1 with Recommendations for the Screening, Diagnosis and Therapy of Breast Cancer.

Purpose The aim of this official guideline coordinated and published by the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) and the German Cancer Society (DKG) was to optimize the screening, diagnosis, therapy and follow-up care of breast cancer. Methods The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2012 was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines which were combined with reviews of evidence compiled using PICO (Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome) questions and the results of a systematic search of literature databases and the selection and evaluation of the identified literature. The interdisciplinary working groups took the identified materials as their starting point to develop recommendations and statements which were modified and graded in a structured consensus procedure. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline presents recommendations for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up care of breast cancer. The importance of mammography for screening is confirmed in this updated version of the guideline and forms the basis for all screening. In addition to the conventional methods used to diagnose breast cancer, computed tomography (CT) is recommended for staging in women with a higher risk of recurrence. The follow-up concept includes suggested intervals between physical, ultrasound and mammography examinations, additional high-tech diagnostic procedures, and the determination of tumor markers for the evaluation of metastatic disease.

The Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. The German S3 guideline of 2012 has now been updated to take account of advances in the early detection, diagnostic evaluation, treatment, and follow-up care of this disease. METHODS: The updating process was based on the adaptation of identified source guidelines and on reviews of the scientific evidence. A systematic search in multiple literature databases was carried out, and the full texts of the selected articles were evaluated. Suggested recommendations were then proposed by interdisciplinary working groups and modified and graded in a nominal consensus procedure. RESULTS: The value of mammographic screening is confirmed in the updated guideline. As for the diagnostic evaluation of breast cancer, computed tomography is recommended for staging in patients with a high risk of recurrence, in addition to conventional methods. As for surgical treatment, the evidence supporting locoregional surgery for primary breast cancer now affords an opportunity for de-escalation: complete resection yields the best outcome, but a safety margin of several millimeters is not necessary. Axillary dissection is no longer recommended except in certain defined situations. Radiotherapeutic approaches consist of hypofractionated applications. Adjuvant systemic therapy is indicated for patients in certain high-risk situations defined by a constellation of factors including tumor grade, patient age, node status, Ki-67 antigen expression, hormone receptor status, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. All patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer should receive endocrine therapy. The indication for chemotherapy and/or anti-HER2 therapy should be determined in consideration of the expected benefit and side effects. CONCLUSION: Consistent implementation of the recommendations in the newly updated guideline can help lessen morbidity and mortality from breast cancer. The actual extent to which breast cancer guidelines are implemented should be a topic of future research.

Highly significant improvement in guideline adherence, relapse-free and overall survival in breast cancer patients when treated at certified breast cancer centres: An evaluation of 8323 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Certified multi-disciplinary breast cancer centres (CBCs) have been established worldwide. Development of CBCs, guideline-adherent systemic therapy and surgical management should now show an impact on outcomes. This analysis aimed to investigate whether guideline adherence (GA) rates, relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) have significantly improved at CBCs compared to the pre-certification period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 8323 patients with primary breast cancer were treated in 17 German CBCs, which had been certified between 2003 and 2007 [2003 (n = 1), 2004 (n = 6), 2005 (n = 3), 2006 (n = 6) and 2007 (n = 1)]. 3544 patients (42.6%) were treated before certification and 4779 patients (57.4%) after certification. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A highly significant (p < 0.001) difference in 100%-GA was found between the various hospitals before certification (min 25.0%; max 54.6%). In 2008, when all participating hospitals were certified, the GA rate was 61.8% (min 39.5%, max 74.4%) and 69.2% (min 45.9%, max 86.4%) for patients <75 y (n = 6675). The difference between pre-certification 100%-GA (46.9%) and post-certification (57.2%) was highly significant (p < 0.001). RFS and OS were both significantly better after certification compared to the pre-certification period (RFS: HR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68-0.92; p = 0.003; OS: HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.65-0.85; p < 0.001). 5-year RFS (OS) of patients <75 y was 89.6% (85.4%) pre-certification and 91.4% (89.5%) post-certification. Since improvement in GA and outcomes correlated as well, GA remains a highly significant prognostic factor for RFS and OS regardless of NPI, intrinsic subtype and adjuvant systemic therapy. This suggests that the certification process is strongly associated with improvements in outcome.

Comorbidity-dependent adherence to guidelines and survival in breast cancer-Is there a role for guideline adherence in comorbid breast cancer patients? A retrospective cohort study with 2137 patients.

In the treatment of breast cancer, decisions on adjuvant treatment reflect individual patient characteristics like age and comorbidity. This study assessed the association between adherence to guidelines for adjuvant treatment and survival while taking into account age at diagnosis and comorbidities. We collected the Charlson comorbidity index at baseline for 2179 women treated for primary breast cancer from 1992 to 2008 who participated in a German retrospective multicenter cohort study. We assessed subsequent adjuvant therapy guideline adherence and survival in relation to baseline comorbidities. Guidelines for adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy were more often violated in patients with higher Charlson score. Patients with higher Charlson scores received chemotherapy and radiotherapy less often and had higher rates of mastectomy. Irrespective of comorbidity (Charlson score 0, 1-2, ≥3), patients with 100% guideline-adherent adjuvant treatment showed better overall and disease-free survival (DFS) compared to patients with guideline violations (GVs). Controlling for age, comorbidity and tumor characteristics, the hazard ratio for at least one GV was 1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33-2.07) for overall survival and 1.84 (95% CI: 1.53-2.22) for DFS. Guideline-adherent treatment was significantly less frequent in comorbid patients, although guideline adherence was strongly associated with improved survival, irrespective of severity, and number of comorbid diseases.

Geriatric assessment and biomarkers in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving first-line mono-chemotherapy: Results from the randomized phase III PELICAN trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine predictive/prognostic factors for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving first-line monochemotherapy using biomarker analysis and geriatric assessment (GA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and GA as clinical parameters, and prognostic inflammatory and nutritional index (PINI), and Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) as biomarkers were analyzed for association with clinical outcome within the randomized phase III PEg-LIposomal Doxorubicin vs. CApecitabin iN MBC (PELICAN) trial of first-line pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) or capecitabine. RESULTS: Of 210 patients, 38% were >65years old. GA (n=152) classified 74% as fit, 10% as compromised, and 16% as frail. Biomarkers showed no age dependency. In multivariate analysis (n=70) KPS, GA, cumulative illness rating scale-geriatrics (CIRS-G), and GPS were significantly associated with time to progression, and KPS, CIRS-G, and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) from GA, and PINI showed a significant correlation with overall survival. CONCLUSION: GA evaluation was feasible. KPS significantly correlated with efficacy outcomes. Items of a GA and biomarkers of inflammation and nutrition may have prognostic significance in patients with MBC.

Is extracapsular nodal extension in sentinel nodes a predictor for nonsentinel metastasis and is there an impact on survival parameters?-A retrospective single center cohort study with 324 patients.

The Z0011 trial has fundamentally changed axillary management in breast cancer patients. However, some important questions remain, like the role of extracapsular nodal extension (ENE) in positive sentinel nodes and the need for further axillary treatment. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed and analyzed data from 342 clinically node negative (cN0) breast cancer patients with a positive sentinel node and subsequent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) from the BRENDA data base. The 104 (30.4%) ENE positive patients had a significantly higher proportion of ≥3 positive axillary lymph nodes (65.0%) compared to ENE negative patients with a positive sentinel node (21.4%). Likewise, ENE positive patients had significantly more often lymph node metastasis size >2 mm (96.2%) than ENE negative patients (72.7%). T1 status was observed significantly more often in ENE negative patients (53.2%) than in ENE positive patients (24.0%). While ENE was linked to worse overall survival in univariate analysis, this effect disappeared when adjusting for nodal status, age, and comorbidities in multivariate analysis. ENE of the sentinel node is an important predictor for nonsentinel lymph node involvement. We suggest that ENE influences survival only via a higher number of positive nodes - one of the most predictive parameters for survival outcome in breast cancer.

["Deciding wisely together" - an initiative of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany: Mission, methodology and application]. / "Gemeinsam Klug Entscheiden" ­ eine Initiative der AWMF und ihrer Fachgesellschaften: Mission, Methodik und Anwendung.

The question of how to improve healthcare quality and the need for patient empowerment and shared decision-making has been the subject of political and scientific debate for years. In addition to various quality initiatives, "top lists" summarizing selected recommendations to increase awareness of overuse, spread by means of public campaigns, has become popular on the international level - known as the "Choosing Wisely" initiative. However, the trustworthiness of "top lists", their impact on patient-relevant outcomes, their role in and integration into the context of the various pre-existing approaches to improve healthcare quality and the effects of neglecting under- and misuse are not clear. On the other hand, "top lists" may provide new opportunities to improve awareness and dissemination of carefully selected recommendations based on high-quality guidelines. Therefore, the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) has established an ad hoc commission to design a system-specific initiative. The commission has the task to clarify goals, methods of development and concepts for implementation and evaluation, to address concerns and to build upon specific existing resources - e. g., the established quality management system for guidelines in Germany. The key goals defined by the commission include the systematization of the dialogue between healthcare practitioners and patients and the promotion of ethically founded decision-making as an answer to an increasing economic orientation of the healthcare system. To ensure the methodological quality of specific recommendations, the commission has developed a manual. To the best of our knowledge, this manual is the first detailed method paper aiming to guide developers of "Choosing Wisely" recommendations. More than 20 German medical scientific societies have already addressed the subject of "top lists".

Personalized axillary dissection: the number of excised lymph nodes of nodal-positive breast cancer patients has no significant impact on relapse-free and overall survival.

PURPOSE: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has replaced axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for the staging of clinically node-negative breast cancer patients (BCP), demonstrating equivalent survival to ALND while resulting in reduced morbidity. ALND has remained the standard of care for the majority of BCP with clinical axillary metastases or metastases found on SLN biopsy. More recently, it is debated whether ALND could be avoided not only in SLN-negative BCP but also in selected SLN-positive disease or even in all patients. This analysis of pN+ BCP shows the impact of the number of excised lymph nodes on RFS and OAS adjusted by age, tumor size, intrinsic subtypes and adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter cohort study, we investigated data from 2992 pN+ primary BCP recruited from 17 participating certified breast cancer centers in Germany between 2001 and 2008 within the BRENDA study group. RESULTS: The median number of excised lymph nodes was 17. The number of excised lymph nodes was neither significant for RFS (p = 0.085) nor for OAS (p = 0.285). Adjustments were made for age, tumor size and intrinsic subtypes. The most important significant parameters for RFS were intrinsic subtypes (p < 0.001) and tumor size (p < 0.001) and for OAS age (p < 0.001) and intrinsic subtypes (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in RFS and OAS in any subgroup stratified by the number of excised lymph nodes. Only for T3/T4 tumors, there is a very small significant advantage of ALND for RFS but not for OAS. After adjusting in addition by guideline adherence of adjuvant systemic therapy (AST), intrinsic subtypes and guideline-adherent AST are the most important significant (p < 0.001) parameters for RFS and OAS. CONCLUSIONS: The number of excised lymph nodes of pN+ BCP neither correlates with RFS nor with OAS. Survival of pN+ BCP is primarily determined by the biology and the guideline-adherent AST based on the corresponding intrinsic subtypes. These results support the omission of a radical ALND at least for pN+ patients scheduled for breast-conserving surgery (not mastectomy), provided they receive whole breast irradiation and guideline-adherent AST.

Are There Breast Cancer Patients with Node-Negative Small Tumours, Who Do Not Benefit from Adjuvant Systemic Therapy?

OBJECTIVE: To identify subgroups of patients with pT1 pN0 breast cancer (BC) who might not profit from adjuvant systemic therapy (AST). METHODS: Data of 3,774 pT1 pN0 BC patients from 17 certified BC centres within the BRENDA study group were collected between 1992 and 2008 and retrospectively analysed. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression models. RESULTS: 279 (7.4%) of the pT1 pN0 BC patients were T1a, 944 (25.0%) were T1b and 2,551 (67.6%) were T1c. There was no significant difference (p > 0.1) in recurrence-free survival (RFS)/overall survival (OAS) between patients with pT1a, pT1b, and T1c. Patients receiving any type of AST had a better outcome compared to women without AST after adjusting for age, tumour size, and intrinsic subtypes (RFS: p < 0.001; OAS: p < 0.001). AST was the most important prognostic parameter for RFS followed by intrinsic subtypes and age. CONCLUSION: Patients with pT1 pN0 BC profit from AST independently of molecular subtypes, tumour size, age or comorbidity, with 5-year RFS of more than 95%. The correct definition of subgroups of patients who do not need AST is still an open question.