Expert UK consensus on the definition of high risk of recurrence in HER2-negative early breast cancer: A modified Delphi panel.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no standardised definition for patients at high risk of recurrence of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative early breast cancer (eBC; stages 1-3) after surgery. This modified Delphi panel aimed to establish expert UK consensus on this definition, separately considering hormone receptor (HR)-positive and triple-negative (TN) patients. METHODS: Over three consecutive rounds, results were collected from 29, 24 and 22 UK senior breast cancer oncologists and surgeons, respectively. The first round aimed to determine key risk factors in each patient subgroup; subsequent rounds aimed to establish appropriate risk thresholds. Consensus was pre-defined as ≥70% of respondents. RESULTS: Expert consensus was achieved on need to assess age, tumour size, tumour grade, number of positive lymph nodes, inflammatory breast cancer and risk prediction tools in all HER2-negative patients. There was additional agreement on use of tumour profiling tests and biomarkers in HR-positive patients, and pathologic complete response (pCR) status in TN patients. Thresholds for high recurrence risk were subsequently agreed. In HR-positive patients, these included age <35 years, tumour size >5 cm (as independent risk factors); tumour grade 3 (independently and combined with other high-risk factors); number of positive nodes ≥4 (independently) and ≥1 (combined). For TN patients, the following thresholds reached consensus, both independently and in combination with other factors: tumour size >2 cm, tumour grade 3, number of positive nodes ≥1. CONCLUSIONS: The results may be a valuable reference point to guide recurrence risk assessment and decision-making after surgery in the HER2-negative eBC population.

Expanded criteria for pretreatment staging CT in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in the approach to staging for distant metastatic disease in breast cancer. This study sought to identify factors predictive of distant metastatic disease at presentation to enable appropriate selection of patients for pretreatment CT. METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for all patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer (screening and symptomatic) over 3 years (2014-2017). Detailed demographic, pathological, biological, and management data were recorded at presentation, and outcome data were recorded after follow-up. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify variables independently associated with distant metastatic disease at presentation. RESULTS: A total of 1377 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were identified, of whom 1025 had complete data; 323 staging CT examinations were performed. Distant metastases were identified at presentation in 47 (4.6 per cent). Some 30 of 47 patients with metastatic disease met established criteria for staging (T4, recurrence, symptoms of possible distant metastases), leaving 17 patients with metastatic disease potentially missed by use of these criteria alone. Multivariable analysis showed that tumour size at least 3 cm combined with sonographically abnormal axillary lymph nodes predicted a high probability of distant metastatic disease at presentation (positive predictive value 18.8 per cent, odds ratio 4.83, P < 0.001). Addition of this criterion increased the positive CT rate to 17.1 per cent. CONCLUSION: Selective pretreatment CT staging can be further optimized with the addition of tumour size at least 3 cm with abnormal axillary nodes to established staging criteria.

Longitudinal characterisation of haematological and biochemical parameters in cancer patients prior to and during COVID-19 reveals features associated with outcome.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are at increased risk of death from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Cancer and its treatment affect many haematological and biochemical parameters, therefore we analysed these prior to and during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and correlated them with outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with cancer testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in centres throughout the United Kingdom were identified and entered into a database following local governance approval. Clinical and longitudinal laboratory data were extracted from patient records. Data were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, logistic regression, or linear regression for outcomes. Hierarchical clustering of heatmaps was performed using Ward's method. RESULTS: In total, 302 patients were included in three cohorts: Manchester (n = 67), Liverpool (n = 62), and UK (n = 173). In the entire cohort (N = 302), median age was 69 (range 19-93 years), including 163 males and 139 females; of these, 216 were diagnosed with a solid tumour and 86 with a haematological cancer. Preinfection lymphopaenia, neutropaenia and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were not associated with oxygen requirement (O2) or death. Lymphocyte count (P < 0.001), platelet count (P = 0.03), LDH (P < 0.0001) and albumin (P < 0.0001) significantly changed from preinfection to during infection. High rather than low neutrophils at day 0 (P = 0.007), higher maximal neutrophils during COVID-19 (P = 0.026) and higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR; P = 0.01) were associated with death. In multivariable analysis, age (P = 0.002), haematological cancer (P = 0.034), C-reactive protein (P = 0.004), NLR (P = 0.036) and albumin (P = 0.02) at day 0 were significant predictors of death. In the Manchester/Liverpool cohort 30 patients have restarted therapy following COVID-19, with no additional complications requiring readmission. CONCLUSION: Preinfection biochemical/haematological parameters were not associated with worse outcome in cancer patients. Restarting treatment following COVID-19 was not associated with additional complications. Neutropaenia due to cancer/treatment is not associated with COVID-19 mortality. Cancer therapy, particularly in patients with solid tumours, need not be delayed or omitted due to concerns that treatment itself increases COVID-19 severity.

The NeST (Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer) study: National Practice Questionnaire of United Kingdom multi-disciplinary decision making.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) is increasingly used in the treatment of breast cancer, yet it is clear that there is significant geographical variation in its use in the UK. This study aimed to examine stated practice across UK breast units, in terms of indications for use, radiological monitoring, pathological reporting of treatment response, and post-treatment surgical management. METHODS: Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) from all UK breast units were invited to participate in the NeST study. A detailed questionnaire assessing current stated practice was distributed to all participating units in December 2017 and data collated securely usingREDCap. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each questionnaire item. RESULTS: Thirty-nine MDTs from a diverse range of hospitals responded. All MDTs routinely offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) to a median of 10% (range 5-60%) of patients. Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) was offered to a median of 4% (range 0-25%) of patients by 66% of MDTs. The principal indication given for use of neoadjuvant therapy was for surgical downstaging. There was no consensus on methods of radiological monitoring of response, and a wide variety of pathological reporting systems were used to assess tumour response. Twenty-five percent of centres reported resecting the original tumour footprint, irrespective of clinical/radiological response. Radiologically negative axillae at diagnosis routinely had post-NACT or post-NET sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in 73.0 and 84% of centres respectively, whereas 16% performed SLNB pre-NACT. Positive axillae at diagnosis would receive axillary node clearance at 60% of centres, regardless of response to NACT. DISCUSSION: There is wide variation in the stated use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy across the UK, with general low usage of NET. Surgical downstaging remains the most common indication of the use of NAC, although not all centres leverage the benefits of NAC for de-escalating surgery to the breast and/or axilla. There is a need for agreed multidisciplinary guidance for optimising selection and management of patients for NST. These findings will be corroborated in phase II of the NeST study which is a national collaborative prospective audit of NST utilisation and clinical outcomes.

The NeST (neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer) study - Protocol for a prospective multi-centre cohort study to assess the current utilization and short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant systemic therapies in breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) has several potential advantages in the treatment of breast cancer. However, there is currently considerable variation in NST use across the UK. The NeST study is a national, prospective, multicentre cohort study that will investigate current patterns of care with respect to NST in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase 1 - a national practice questionnaire (NPQ) to survey current practice.Phase 2 - a multi-centre prospective cohort study of breast cancer patients, undergoing NST.Women undergoing NST as their MDT recommended primary breast cancer treatment between December 2017 and May 2018 will be included. The breast surgery and oncological professional associations and the trainee research collaborative networks will encourage participation by all breast cancer centres.Patient demographics, radiological, oncological, surgical and pathological data will be collected, including complications and the need for further intervention/treatment. Data will be collated to establish current practice in the UK, regarding NST usage and variability of access and provision of these therapies. Prospective data on 600 patients from ~50 centres are anticipated.Trial registration: ISRCTN11160072. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for this study, as per the online Health Research Authority decision tool. The information obtained will provide valuable insights to help patients make informed decisions about their treatment. These data should establish current practice in the UK concerning NST, inform future service delivery as well as identifying further research questions.This protocol will be disseminated through the Mammary Fold Academic Research Collaborative (MFAC), the Reconstructive Surgery Trials Network and the Association of Breast Surgery. Participating units will have access to their own data and collective results will be presented at relevant conferences and published in appropriate peer-reviewed journals, as well as being made accessible to relevant patient groups.

The presentation, management and outcome of inflammatory breast cancer cases in the UK: Data from a multi-centre retrospective review.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory Breast cancer (IBC) is a rare but aggressive form of breast cancer. Its incidence and behaviour in the UK is poorly characterised. We collected retrospective data from hospitals in the UK and Ireland to describe the presentation, pathology, treatment and clinical course of IBC in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with IBC diagnosed between 1997-2014 at fourteen UK and Irish hospitals were identified from local breast unit databases. Patient characteristics, tumour pathology and stage, and details of surgical, systemic and radiotherapy treatment and follow-up data were collected from electronic patient records and medical notes. RESULT: This retrospective review identified 445 patients with IBC accounting for 0.4-1.8% of invasive breast cancer cases. Median follow-up was 4.2 years. 53.2% of tumours were grade 3, 56.2% were oestrogen receptor positive, 31.3% were HER2 positive and 25.1% were triple negative. 20.7% of patients had distant metastases at presentation. Despite trimodality treatment in 86.4%, 40.1% of stage III patients developed distant metastases. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 61.0% for stage III and 21.4% for stage IV patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of UK IBC patients reported to date. It indicates a lower incidence than in American series, but confirms that IBC has a high risk of recurrence with poor survival despite contemporary multi-modality therapy. A national strategy is required to facilitate translational research into this aggressive disease.

Early breast cancer: why does obesity affect prognosis?

High BMI is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in post-menopausal women but poorer outcomes in all age groups. The underlying mechanism is likely to be multi-factorial. Patients with a high BMI may present later due to body habitus. Some studies have also indicated an increased incidence of biologically adverse features, including a higher frequency of oestrogen receptor (ER negative) tumours, in obese patients. Obese patients have a higher frequency of surgical complications, potentially delaying systemic therapies, and reports suggest that chemotherapy and endocrine therapy are less effective in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2.High BMI is generally interpreted as excess adiposity and a World Cancer Research Fund report judged that the associations between BMI and incidence of breast cancer were due to body fatness. However, BMI cannot distinguish lean mass from fat mass, or characterise body fat distribution. Most chemotherapy drugs are dosed according to calculated body surface area (BSA). Patients with a similar BSA or BMI may have wide variations in their distribution of adipose tissue and skeletal muscle (body composition); however, few studies have looked at the effect of this on chemotherapy tolerance or effectiveness. Finally, adjuvant treatments for breast cancer can themselves result in body composition changes.Research is required to fully understand the biological mechanisms by which obesity influences cancer behaviour and the impact of obesity on treatment effectiveness and tolerance so that specific management strategies can be developed to improve the prognosis of this patient group.

A systematic review of the safety and efficacy of aerobic exercise during cytotoxic chemotherapy treatment.

PURPOSE: Aerobic exercise improves prognosis and quality of life (QoL) following completion of chemotherapy. However, the safety and efficacy of aerobic exercise during chemotherapy is less certain. A systematic review was performed of randomised trials of adult patients undergoing chemotherapy, comparing an exercise intervention with standard care. METHOD: From 253 abstracts screened, 33 unique trials were appraised in accordance with PRISMA guidance, including 3257 patients. Interventions included walking, jogging or cycling, and 23 were of moderate intensity (50-80% maximum heart rate). RESULTS: Aerobic exercise improved, or at least maintained fitness during chemotherapy. Moderately intense exercise, up to 70-80% of maximum heart rate, was safe. Any reported adverse effects of exercise were mild and self-limiting, but reporting was inconsistent. Adherence was good (median 72%). Exercise improved QoL and physical functioning, with earlier return to work. Two out of four studies reported improved chemotherapy completion rates. Four out of six studies reported reduced chemotherapy toxicity. There was no evidence that exercise reduced myelosuppression or improved response rate or survival. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise during chemotherapy is safe and should be encouraged because of beneficial effects on QoL and physical functioning. More research is required to determine the impact on chemotherapy completion rates and prognosis.

Genetic testing in a cohort of young patients with HER2-amplified breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Young age at diagnosis for breast cancer raises the question of genetic susceptibility. We explored breast cancer susceptibility genes testing on ≤40-year-old patients with HER2-amplified invasive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were selected from a large UK cohort study. The inclusion criterion was age ≤40 at diagnosis with confirmed HER2-amplified breast cancer. The probability of finding a BRCA gene mutation was calculated based on family history. Genetic testing used was either clinical testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, with a subset also tested for TP53 mutations, or research-based testing using a typical panel comprising 17 breast cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) including BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53. RESULTS: Of the 591 eligible patients, clinical testing results were available for 133 cases and an additional 263 cases had panel testing results. BRCA testing across 396 cases found 8 BRCA2 (2%) and 6 BRCA1 (2%) pathogenic mutations. Of the 304 patients tested for TP53 mutations, overall 9 (3%) had deleterious TP53 mutations. Of the 396 patients, 101 (26%) met clinical criteria for BRCA testing (≥10% probability), among whom 11% had pathogenic BRCA mutations (6 BRCA2, 5 BRCA1). Where the probability was calculated to be <10%, only 4 of 295 (1%) patients had BRCA mutations. Among the 59 patients who had TP53 testing meeting the 10% threshold, 7 had mutations (12%). Likely functionally deleterious mutations in 14 lower penetrance CSGs were present in 12 of 263 (5%) panel-tested patients. CONCLUSION: Patients aged <41 at diagnosis with HER2+ breast cancer and no family history of breast cancer can be reassured that they have a low chance of being a high-risk gene carrier. If there is a strong family history, not only BRCA but also TP53 gene testing should be considered. The clinical utility of testing lower penetrance CSGs remains unclear.

Understanding of BRCA VUS genetic results by breast cancer specialists.

BACKGROUND: Mainstreaming genetic medicine, increased media coverage and clinical trials for BRCA mutation carriers are leading oncologists into more patient discussions about BRCA genetic testing. BRCA variants of uncertain significance (VUS) occur in 10-20% of tests. VUS detection introduces additional uncertainty for patient and potentially clinician. We aimed to explore the ability of breast cancer specialists (BCS) in the UK to correctly respond to a VUS report. METHODS: A survey sent to 800 UK BCS collected demographics data, VUS general knowledge and interpretation and communication based on two genetics reports. A separate survey of UK clinical geneticists collected demographics data, laboratory reporting practice and methods used to clarify VUS pathogenicity including classification systems. RESULTS: Of the 155 BCS (22.5%) who completed the survey, 12% reported no genetics training. Ninety five percent referred patients for BRCA genetic tests, 71% felt unsure about the clinical implications of the test reports presented here. A VUS report from a patient with a positive family history was interpreted and theoretically communicated correctly by 94% but when presented with a different VUS report with no management guidance and negative family history, 39% did not know how to communicate this result to the patient. Geneticists reported multiple VUS classification systems; the most commonly used was word-based in 32%. CONCLUSIONS: A consistent and standardised format to report particularly VUS results across all diagnostic laboratories plus additional training of UK BCS will be necessary for effective mainstreaming of BRCA testing to the oncology clinic.

Family history and outcome of young patients with breast cancer in the UK (POSH study).

BACKGROUND: Young patients presenting to surgical clinics with breast cancer are usually aware of their family history and frequently believe that a positive family history may adversely affect their prognosis. Tumour pathology and outcomes were compared in young British patients with breast cancer with and without a family history of breast cancer. METHODS: Prospective Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) is a large prospective cohort study of women aged less than 41 years with breast cancer diagnosed and treated in the UK using modern oncological management. Personal characteristics, tumour pathology, treatment and family history of breast/ovarian cancer were recorded. Follow-up data were collected annually. RESULTS: Family history data were available for 2850 patients. No family history was reported by 65·9 per cent, and 34·1 per cent reported breast/ovarian cancer in at least one first- or second-degree relative. Patients with a family history were more likely to have grade 3 tumours (63·3 versus 58·9 per cent) and less likely to have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive tumours (24·7 versus 28·8 per cent) than those with no family history. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in distant disease-free intervals for patients with versus those without a family history, either for the whole cohort (hazard ratio (HR) 0·89, 95 per cent c.i. 0·76 to 1·03; P = 0·120) or when stratified by oestrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-negative: HR 0·80, 0·62 to 1·04, P = 0·101; ER-positive: HR 0·95, 0·78 to 1·15, P = 0·589). CONCLUSION: Young British patients presenting to breast surgical clinics with a positive family history can be reassured that this is not a significant independent risk factor for breast cancer outcome.

Obesity in breast cancer--what is the risk factor?

Environmental factors influence breast cancer incidence and progression. High body mass index (BMI) is associated with increased risk of post-menopausal breast cancer and with poorer outcome in those with a history of breast cancer. High BMI is generally interpreted as excess adiposity (overweight or obesity) and the World Cancer Research Fund judged that the associations between BMI and incidence of breast cancer were due to body fatness. Although BMI is the most common measure used to characterise body composition, it cannot distinguish lean mass from fat mass, or characterise body fat distribution, and so individuals with the same BMI can have different body composition. In particular, the relation between BMI and lean or fat mass may differ between people with or without disease. The question therefore arises as to what aspect or aspects of body composition are causally linked to the poorer outcome of breast cancer patients with high BMI. This question is not addressed in the literature. Most studies have used BMI, without discussion of its shortcomings as a marker of body composition, leading to potentially important misinterpretation. In this article we review the different measurements used to characterise body composition in the literature, and how they relate to breast cancer risk and prognosis. Further research is required to better characterise the relation of body composition to breast cancer.

An evaluation of the prognostic model PREDICT using the POSH cohort of women aged ⩽40 years at breast cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in younger women (aged ⩽40 years) in the United Kingdom. PREDICT (http://www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online prognostic tool developed to help determine the best available treatment and outcome for early breast cancer. This study was conducted to establish how well PREDICT performs in estimating survival in a large cohort of younger women recruited to the UK POSH study. METHODS: The POSH cohort includes data from 3000 women aged ⩽40 years at breast cancer diagnosis. Study end points were overall and breast cancer-specific survival at 5, 8, and 10 years. Evaluation of PREDICT included model discrimination and comparison of the number of predicted versus observed events. RESULTS: PREDICT provided accurate long-term (8- and 10-year) survival estimates for younger women. Five-year estimates were less accurate, with the tool overestimating survival by 25% overall, and by 56% for patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours. PREDICT underestimated survival at 5 years among patients with ER-negative tumours. CONCLUSIONS: PREDICT is a useful tool for providing reliable long-term (10-year) survival estimates for younger patients. However, for more accurate short-term estimates, the model requires further calibration using more data from young onset cases. Short-term prediction may be most relevant for the increasing number of women considering risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy.

Obesity and the outcome of young breast cancer patients in the UK: the POSH study.

BACKGROUND: Obese breast cancer patients have a poorer prognosis than non-obese patients. We examined data from a large prospective cohort study to explore the associations of obesity with tumour pathology, treatment and outcome in young British breast cancer patients receiving modern oncological treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 2956 patients aged ≤40 at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from 126 UK hospitals from 2001 to 2007. Height and weight were measured at registration. Tumour pathology and treatment details were collected. Follow-up data were collected at 6, 12 months, and annually. RESULTS: A total of 2843 eligible patients (96.2%) had a body mass index (BMI) recorded: 1526 (53.7%) were under/healthy-weight (U/H, BMI <25 kg/m(2)), 784 (27.6%) were overweight (ov, BMI ≥25 to <30), and 533 (18.7%) were obese (ob, BMI ≥30). The median tumour size was significantly higher in obese and overweight patients than U/H patients (Ob 26 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001; Ov 24 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001). Obese and overweight patients had significantly more grade 3 tumours (63.9% versus 59.0%, P = 0.048; Ov 63.6% versus U/H 59.0% P = 0.034) and node-positive tumours (Ob 54.6% versus U/H 49.0%, P = 0.027; Ov 54.2% versus U/H 49%, P = 0.019) than U/H patients. Obese patients had more ER/PR/HER2-negative tumours than healthy-weight patients (25.0% versus 18.3%, P = 0.001). Eight-year overall survival (OS) and distant disease-free interval (DDFI) were significantly lower in obese patients than healthy-weight patients [OS: hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, P < 0.001; DDFI: HR 1.44, P < 0.001]. Multivariable analyses adjusting for tumour grade, size, nodal, and HER2 status indicated that obesity was a significant independent predictor of OS and DDFI in patients with ER-positive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Young obese breast cancer patients present with adverse tumour characteristics. Despite adjustment for this, obesity still independently predicts DDFI and OS.

Ethnicity and outcome of young breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom: the POSH study.

BACKGROUND: Black ethnic groups have a higher breast cancer mortality than Whites. American studies have identified variations in tumour biology and unequal health-care access as causative factors. We compared tumour pathology, treatment and outcomes in three ethnic groups in young breast cancer patients treated in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Women aged ≤ 40 years at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited to the POSH national cohort study (MREC: 00/06/69). Personal characteristics, tumour pathology and treatment data were collected at diagnosis. Follow-up data were collected annually. Overall survival (OS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Ethnicity data were available for 2915 patients including 2690 (91.0%) Whites, 118 (4.0%) Blacks and 87 (2.9%) Asians. Median tumour diameter at presentation was greater in Blacks than Whites (26.0 mm vs 22.0 mm, P=0.0103), and multifocal tumours were more frequent in both Blacks (43.4%) and Asians (37.0%) than Whites (28.9%). ER/PR/HER2-negative tumours were significantly more frequent in Blacks (26.1%) than Whites (18.6%, P=0.043). Use of chemotherapy was similarly high in all ethnic groups (89% B vs 88.6% W vs 89.7% A). A 5-year DRFS was significantly lower in Blacks than Asians (62.8% B vs 77.0% A, P=0.0473) or Whites (62.8 B% vs 77.0% W, P=0.0053) and a 5-year OS for Black patients, 71.1% (95% CI: 61.0-79.1%), was significantly lower than that of Whites (82.4%, 95% CI: 80.8-83.9%, W vs B: P=0.0160). In multivariate analysis, Black ethnicity had an effect on DRFS in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive patients that is independent of body mass index, tumour size, grade or nodal status, HR: 1.60 (95% CI: 1.03-2.47, P=0.035). CONCLUSION: Despite equal access to health care, young Black women in the United Kingdom have a significantly poorer outcome than White patients. Black ethnicity is an independent risk factor for reduced DRFS particularly in ER-positive patients.

Herceptin (trastuzamab) in advanced breast cancer.

Herceptin (trastuzamab, Genentech, San Francisco, CA, USA) prolongs survival in metastatic breast cancer patients whose tumours overexpress the HER2/neu protein. Compared with chemotherapy alone, patients receiving chemotherapy and Herceptin have a significantly longer time to progression, a higher response rate and a longer duration of response. These effects are most marked in first-line treatment of metastatic disease. The addition of Herceptin is associated with few additional side-effects, apart from cardiac toxicity in patients concurrently receiving anthracyclines. As such, it seems reasonable for Herceptin to become considered as one of the routine treatment options in metastatic breast cancer. It would therefore be appropriate for HER2 status testing to be incorporated into the assessment of all patients with metastatic disease. The use of this medication will be limited by its cost. Furthermore, data are lacking on appropriate treatments durations in responders.