Skip to main content
Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde logoLink to Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde
. 2018 Nov 26;78(11):1056–1088. doi: 10.1055/a-0646-4630

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

Interdisziplinäre Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Leitlinie der DGGG und DKG (S3-Level, AWMF-Registernummer 032/045OL, Dezember 2017) – Teil 2 mit Empfehlungen zur Therapie des primären, rezidivierten und fortgeschrittenen Mammakarzinoms

Achim Wöckel 1,, Jasmin Festl 1, Tanja Stüber 1, Katharina Brust 1, Mathias Krockenberger 1, Peter U Heuschmann 2, Steffi Jírů-Hillmann 2, Ute-Susann Albert 3, Wilfried Budach 4, Markus Follmann 5, Wolfgang Janni 6, Ina Kopp 3, Rolf Kreienberg 6, Thorsten Kühn 7, Thomas Langer 5, Monika Nothacker 3, Anton Scharl 8, Ingrid Schreer 9, Hartmut Link 10, Jutta Engel 11, Tanja Fehm 12, Joachim Weis 13, Anja Welt 14, Anke Steckelberg 15, Petra Feyer 16, Klaus König 17, Andrea Hahne 18, Traudl Baumgartner 18, Hans H Kreipe 19, Wolfram Trudo Knoefel 20, Michael Denkinger 21, Sara Brucker 22, Diana Lüftner 23, Christian Kubisch 24, Christina Gerlach 25, Annette Lebeau 26, Friederike Siedentopf 27, Cordula Petersen 28, Hans Helge Bartsch 29, Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland 30, Markus Hahn 22, Volker Hanf 31, Markus Müller-Schimpfle 32, Ulla Henscher 33, Renza Roncarati 34, Alexander Katalinic 35, Christoph Heitmann 36, Christoph Honegger 37, Kerstin Paradies 38, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic 39, Friedrich Degenhardt 40, Frederik Wenz 41, Oliver Rick 42, Dieter Hölzel 11, Matthias Zaiss 43, Gudrun Kemper 44, Volker Budach 45, Carsten Denkert 46, Bernd Gerber 47, Hans Tesch 48, Susanne Hirsmüller 49, Hans-Peter Sinn 50, Jürgen Dunst 51, Karsten Münstedt 52, Ulrich Bick 53, Eva Fallenberg 53, Reina Tholen 54, Roswita Hung 55, Freerk Baumann 56, Matthias W Beckmann 57, Jens Blohmer 58, Peter Fasching 57, Michael P Lux 57, Nadia Harbeck 59, Peyman Hadji 60, Hans Hauner 61, Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner 62, Jens Huober 6, Jutta Hübner 63, Christian Jackisch 64, Sibylle Loibl 65, Hans-Jürgen Lück 66, Gunter von Minckwitz 65, Volker Möbus 67, Volkmar Müller 68, Ute Nöthlings 69, Marcus Schmidt 70, Rita Schmutzler 71, Andreas Schneeweiss 72, Florian Schütz 72, Elmar Stickeler 73, Christoph Thomssen 74, Michael Untch 75, Simone Wesselmann 76, Arno Bücker 77, Andreas Buck 78, Stephanie Stangl 2
PMCID: PMC6261741  PMID: 30581198

Abstract

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.

Key words: breast cancer, guideline, therapy, primary breast cancer, metastatic breast cancer

I  Guideline Information

Guidelines program of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG

Information on the guidelines program is available at the end of the guideline.

Citation format

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. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2018; 78: 1056–1088

Guideline documents

The complete long version together with a summary of the conflicts of interest of all the authors and a short version of the guideline are available in German on the AWMF homepage under: http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/032-045OL.html or www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de

Guideline authors

The German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), working together with the German Cancer Society (DKG), was the lead professional organization behind this guideline. The updated guideline presented here was supported by German Cancer Aid in the context of their oncology guidelines program (OL program). The working groups for this guideline consisted of members of the guideline steering group ( Table 1 ), specialists nominated by participating professional societies and organizations ( Table 2 ), and experts invited to participate by the steering committee ( Table 3 ), and they are the authors of this guideline. Only mandate holders nominated by participating professional societies and organizations were eligible to vote on a chapter-by-chapter basis during the voting process (consensus process) after they had disclosed and excluded any conflicts of interest. The guideline was compiled with the direct participation of four patient representatives.

Table 1  Steering committee.

Name City
1 Prof. Dr. Ute-Susann Albert Marburg
2 Prof. Dr. Wilfried Budach Düsseldorf
3 Dr. Markus Follmann, MPH, MSc Berlin
4 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Janni Ulm
5 Prof. Dr. Ina Kopp Marburg
6 Prof. Dr. Rolf Kreienberg Landshut
7 PD Dr. Mathias Krockenberger Würzburg
8 Prof. Dr. Thorsten Kühn Esslingen
9 Dipl.-Soz. Wiss. Thomas Langer Berlin
10 Dr. Monika Nothacker Marburg
11 Prof. Dr. Anton Scharl Amberg
12 Prof. Dr. Ingrid Schreer Hamburg-Eimsbüttel
13 Prof. Dr. Achim Wöckel (Leitlinienkoordination) Würzburg
Methodological consulting: Prof. Dr. P. U. Heuschmann, University of Würzburg

Table 2  Participating professional societies and organizations.

Professional societies 1st mandate holder 2nd mandate holder (deputy)
Radiological Oncology Working Group [AG Radiologische Onkologie (ARO)] Prof. Dr. Wilfried Budach , Düsseldorf Prof. Dr. Frederik Wenz , Mannheim
Supportive Measures in Oncology, Rehabilitation and Social Medicine Working Group [AG Supportive Maßnahmen in der Onkologie, Rehabilitation und Sozialmedizin (ASORS)] Prof. Dr. Hartmut Link , Kaiserslautern Prof. Dr. Oliver Rick , Bad Wildungen
Association of German Tumor Centers [Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tumorzentren e. V. (ADT)] Prof. Dr. Jutta Engel , Munich Prof. Dr. Dieter Hölzel , Munich
German Society of Gynecological Oncology [Arbeitsgemeinschaft für gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO)] Prof. Dr. Tanja Fehm , Düsseldorf Prof. Dr. Anton Scharl , Amberg
Prevention and Integrative Oncology Working Group [AG Prävention und Integrative Onkologie (PRiO)] Prof. Dr. Volker Hanf , Fürth Prof. Dr. Karsten Münstedt , Offenburg
Psycho-oncology Working Group of the German Cancer Society [Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Psychoonkologie in der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e. V. (PSO)] Prof. Dr. Joachim Weis , Freiburg
Internal Oncology Working Group [Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)] Dr. Anja Welt , Essen Dr. Matthias Zaiss , Freiburg
Womenʼs Health Work Group [Arbeitskreis Frauengesundheit (AKF)] Prof. Dr. Anke Steckelberg , Halle Gudrun Kemper , Berlin
Professional Association of German Radiation Therapists [Berufsverband Deutscher Strahlentherapeuten e. V. (BVDST)] Prof. Dr. Petra Feyer , Berlin Prof. Dr. Volker Budach , Berlin
Professional Association of German Gynecologists [Berufsverband für Frauenärzte e. V.] Dr. Klaus König , Steinbach
BRCA Network [BRCA-Netzwerk e. V.] Andrea Hahne , Bonn Traudl Baumgartner , Bonn
German Society for Pathology [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pathologie] Prof. Dr. Hans H. Kreipe , Hanover Prof. Dr. Carsten Denkert , Berlin
Surgical Oncology Working Group [Chirurgische AG für Onkologie (CAO-V)] Prof. Dr. Wolfram Trudo Knoefel , Düsseldorf
German Society of Geriatrics [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geriatrie (DGG)] Prof. Dr. Michael Denkinger , Ulm
German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG)] Prof. Dr. Sara Brucker , Tübingen Prof. Dr. Bernd Gerber , Rostock
German Society of Hematology and Oncology [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Onkologie (DGHO)] Prof. Dr. Diana Lüftner , Berlin Prof. Dr. Hans Tesch , Frankfurt
German Society of Nuclear Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nuklearmedizin (DGN)] Prof. Dr. Andreas Buck
German Society of Human Genetics [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Humangenetik e. V. (GfH)] Prof. Dr. Christian Kubisch , Hamburg
German Society for Palliative Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin (DGP)] Dr. Christina Gerlach , MSc, Mainz Dr. Susanne Hirsmüller , MSc, Düsseldorf
Professional Association of German Pathologists [Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen e. V.] Prof. Dr. Annette Lebeau , Hamburg Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Sinn , Heidelberg
German Society of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology [Deutsche Gesellschaft für psychosomatische Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe (DGPFG)] PD Dr. Friederike Siedentopf , Berlin
German Society for Radiation Oncology [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Radioonkologie (DEGRO)] Prof. Dr. Cordula Petersen , Hamburg Prof. Dr. Jürgen Dunst , Kiel
German Society for Rehabilitation Sciences [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rehabilitationswissenschaften (DGRW)] Prof. Dr. Hans Helge Bartsch , Freiburg
German Society for Senology [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie (DGS)] Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland , Erlangen
German Society for Ultrasound in Medicine [Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin e. V. (DEGUM)] Prof. Dr. Markus Hahn , Tübingen
German Roentgen Society [Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft e. V.] Prof. Dr. Markus Müller-Schimpfle , Frankfurt Till 31.12.16: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Bick , Berlin
from 01.01.17: PD Dr. E. Fallenberg , Berlin
German Physiotherapy Society [Deutscher Verband für Physiotherapie e. V. (ZVK)] Ulla Henscher , Hanover Reina Tholen , Cologne
Self-help group for women after cancer [Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs] Dr. Renza Roncarati , Bonn Roswita Hung , Wolfsburg
Association of Epidemiological Cancer Registries in Germany [Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. (GEKID)] Prof. Dr. Alexander Katalinic , Lübeck
German Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery [Gesellschaft der Plastischen, Rekonstruktiven und Ästhetischen Chirurgie (DGPRÄC)] Prof. Dr. Christoph Heitmann , Munich
Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics [Gynécologie Suisse (SGGG)] Dr. Christoph Honegger , Baar
Conference of Oncological Nursing and Pediatric Nursing [Konferenz Onkologischer Kranken- und Kinderkrankenpflege (KOK)] Kerstin Paradies , Hamburg
Austrian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics [Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (OEGGG)] Prof. Dr. Vesna Bjelic-Radisic , Graz
Ultrasound Diagnosis in Gynecology and Obstetrics [Ultraschalldiagnostik in Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (ARGUS)] Prof. Dr. med. Dr. h. c. Friedrich Degenhardt , Hanover

Table 3  Experts contributing in an advisory capacity and other contributors.

Name City
Experts contributing in an advisory capacity
PD Dr. Freerk Baumann Cologne
Prof. Dr. Matthias W. Beckmann Erlangen
Prof. Dr. Jens Blohmer Berlin
Prof. Dr. Peter Fasching Erlangen
Prof. Dr. Nadia Harbeck Munich
Prof. Dr. Peyman Hadji Frankfurt
Prof. Dr. Hans Hauner Munich
Prof. Dr. Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner Munich
Prof. Dr. Jens Huober Ulm
Prof. Dr. Jutta Hübner Jena
Prof. Dr. Christian Jackisch Offenbach
Prof. Dr. Sibylle Loibl Neu-Isenburg
Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Lück Hanover
Prof. Dr. Michael P. Lux Erlangen
Prof. Dr. Gunter von Minckwitz Neu-Isenburg
Prof. Dr. Volker Möbus Frankfurt
Prof. Dr. Volkmar Müller Hamburg
Prof. Dr. Ute Nöthlings Kiel
Prof. Dr. Marcus Schmidt Mainz
Prof. Dr. Rita Schmutzler Cologne
Prof. Dr. Andreas Schneeweiss Heidelberg
Prof. Dr. Florian Schütz Heidelberg
Prof. Dr. Elmar Stickeler Aachen
Prof. Dr. Christoph Thomssen Halle (Saale)
Prof. Dr. Michael Untch Berlin
Dr. Simone Wesselmann, MBA Berlin
Dr. Barbara Zimmer, MPH, MA (Oncology Competence Center, MDK [Medical Service of the Health Insurance Funds] North-Rhine, not listed as an author at the explicit request of the MDK) Düsseldorf
Other contributors
Katharina Brust, BSc (guideline secretariat) Würzburg
Dr. Jasmin Festl (guideline assessment, selection of relevant publications) Würzburg
Steffi Hillmann, MPH (search for and assessment of guidelines) Würzburg
PD Dr. Mathias Krockenberger (selection of relevant publications) Würzburg
Stephanie Stangl, MPH Würzburg
Dr. Tanja Stüber (selection of relevant publications) Würzburg

Abbreviations of the S3 Breast Cancer Guideline

ADH

atypical (intra) ductal hyperplasia

AI

aromatase inhibitor

AML

acute myeloid leukemia

APBI

accelerated partial breast irradiation

ASCO

American Society of Clinical Oncology

ADL

activities of daily living

AUC

area under the curve

BÄK

German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer)

BCT

breast-conserving therapy

BI-RADS

breast imaging reporting and data system

BMI

body mass index

BPM

bilateral prophylactic mastectomy

BPSO

bilateral prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy

BRCA1/2

breast cancer-associated gene 1/2

CAM

complementary and alternative methods

CAP

College of American Pathologists

CD

cognitive dysfunction

CDLT

complex/complete decongestive lymphatic therapy

CGA

comprehensive geriatric assessment

CHF

chronic heart failure

CIPN

chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

CISH

chromogenic in situ hybridization

CM

contrast media

CNB

core needle biopsy

CNS

central nervous system

CT

computed tomography

DCIS

ductal carcinoma in situ

DBT

digital breast tomosynthesis

DFS

disease-free survival

DGS

German Society for Senology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie)

DKG

German Cancer Society

DMP

disease management program

EC

expert consensus

ECE

extracapsular tumor extension

EIC

extensive intraductal component

ER

estrogen receptor

ESA

erythropoiesis-stimulating agents

ESAS

Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale

ET

estrogen therapy

FEA

flat epithelial atypia

FISH

fluorescent in situ hybridization

FN

febrile neutropenia

FNA

fine needle aspiration

FNB

fine needle biopsy

G-CSF

granulocyte colony-stimulating factor

GnRHa

gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist

HADS

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

HER2

human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

HT

hormone therapy

IARC

International Agency for Research on Cancer

IBC

inflammatory breast cancer

IHC

immunohistochemistry

IMRT

intensity-modulated radiotherapy

IORT

intraoperative radiation therapy

IQWIG

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen)

ISH

in situ hybridization

ITC

intrathecal chemotherapy

LABC

locally advanced breast cancer

LCIS

lobular carcinoma in situ

LN

lymph node

LoE

level of evidence

L-spine

lumbar spine

LVEF

left ventricular ejection fraction

LVI

lymphatic vessel invasion

MDS

myelodysplastic syndrome

MG

mammography

MRI

magnetic resonance imaging

MSP

mammography screening program

NAC

nipple-areolar complex

NACT

neoadjuvant chemotherapy

NCCN

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

NICE

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

NNT

number needed to treat

NZGG

New Zealand Guidelines Group

OP

operation

OS

overall survival

PBI

partial breast irradiation

pCR

pathological complete remission

PET

positron emission tomography

PFS

progression-free survival

PI

proliferation index

PMRT

postoperative radiotherapy

PNP

polyneuropathy

POS

Palliative Outcome Scale

PR

progesterone receptor

PST

primary systemic therapy

QoL

quality of life

RCT

randomized controlled trial

RFA

radiofrequency ablation

ROR

risk of recurrence

RR

relative risk

RS

recurrence score

SABCS

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

SBRT

stereotactic radiotherapy

SGB

German Social Security Code (Sozialgesetzbuch)

SIB

simultaneous integrated boost

SIGN

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network

SISH

silver-enhanced in situ hybridization

SLN

sentinel lymph node

SLNB

sentinel lymph node biopsy

SLNE

sentinel lymph node excision

s/p

status post

SSM

skin-sparing mastectomy

TACE

transarterial chemoembolization

TILs

tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes

TNBC

triple-negative breast cancer

TNM classification

tumor–node–metastasis classification

T-spine

thoracic spine

UICC

Union for International Cancer Control

US

ultrasound

VMAT

volumetric arc therapy

WHO

World Health Organization  

II  Guideline Application

Purpose and objectives

The most important reason to update this interdisciplinary guideline was the epidemiological impact of breast cancer and its associated burden of disease, both of which are still high. This is the context in which the impact of new management concepts and their implementation needed to be evaluated.

Targeted areas of patient care

The guideline covers outpatient, inpatient and rehabilitative care.

Target patient groups

The recommendations of the guideline are aimed at all women and men who develop breast cancer as well as their relatives.

Target user groups/Target audience

The recommendations of the guideline are addressed to all physicians and professionals who provide screening services for women or care for patients with breast cancer (gynecologists, general practitioners, human geneticists, radiologists, pathologists, radio-oncologists, hemato-oncologists, psycho-oncologists, physiotherapists, nursing staff, etc.).

Adoption of the guideline and period of validity

This guideline is valid from December 1, 2017 through to November 30, 2022. Because of the contents of this guideline, this period of validity is only an estimate. It may become necessary to update the guideline because of new scientific evidence and knowledge as well as new developments affecting the methodology used for these guidelines. It is also necessary to edit and revise the guidelineʼs contents and re-evaluate and revise the key statements and recommendations of the guidelines at regular intervals.

III  Methodology

Basic principles

The method used to prepare this guideline was determined by the class to which this guideline was assigned. The AWMF Guidance Manual (version 1.0) has set out the respective rules and regulations for the different classes of guidelines. Guidelines are differentiated into lowest (S1), intermediate (S2) and highest class (S3). The lowest class is defined as a set of recommendations for action compiled by a non-representative group of experts. In 2004, the S2 class was subdivided into two subclasses: a systematic evidence-based subclass (S2e) and a structural consensus-based subclass (S2k). The highest class (S3) combines both approaches. This guideline is classified as: S3.

Grading of evidence

This guideline used the 2009 version of the system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (levels 1 – 5) to classify the risk of bias in identified studies. This system classifies studies according to various clinical questions (benefit of therapy, prognostic value, diagnostic validity). For more detailed information, abbreviations and notes, see: https://www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/

Grading of recommendations

While the classification of the quality of the evidence (strength of evidence) serves as an indication of the robustness of the published data and therefore expresses the extent of certainty/uncertainty regarding the data, the classification of the level of recommendation reflects the results of weighing up the desirable and adverse consequences of alternative approaches. This guideline shows the level of evidence for the underlying studies as well as the strength of the recommendation (level of recommendation) for all evidence-based Statements and Recommendations. This guideline differentiates between three levels of recommendation ( Table 4 ). The levels reflect the strength of the respective recommendation and are also mirrored in the terms used to formulate the recommendation.

Table 4  Grading of recommendations.

Level of recommendation Description Syntax
A strong recommendation, highly binding must/must not
B recommendation, moderately binding should/should not
0 open recommendation, not binding may/may not

Statements

Statements are expositions or explanations of specific facts, circumstances or problems with no direct recommendations for action. Statements are adopted after a formal consensus process using the same approach as that used when formulating recommendations and can be based either on trial results or expert opinions.

Expert consensus

As the expression implies, this term refers to consensus decisions taken specifically with regard to Recommendations/Statements without a previous systematic search of the literature (S2k) or when evidence is lacking (S2e/S3). The term “Expert Consensus” (EC) used here is synonymous with terms such as “Good Clinical Practice” (GCP) or “Clinical Consensus Point” used in other guidelines. The level of recommendation is graded as previously described in the Chapter “Grading of recommendations”, but the grading is only presented semantically (“must”/“must not” or “should”/“should not” or “may”/“may not”) without the use of symbols.

Guideline report

To edit and update the various topic areas, an adaptation of existing guidelines was planned for around 80% of Statements and Recommendations in accordance with the AWMF Guidance Manual. To do this, a systematic search was carried out for source guidelines developed specifically for women with breast cancer and published after 2013. Findings were compared with the IQWiG guideline report No. 224 (Systematische Leitlinienrecherche und -bewertung sowie Extraktion relevanter Recommendations für das DMP Brustkrebs [Systematic guideline search and appraisal as well as extraction of relevant recommendations for a breast cancer DMP]). A further inclusion criterion was compliance with methodological standards. Guidelines were included if they complied with at least 50% of Domain 3 (Rigour of Development) of the AGREE II instrument. A corresponding search and evidence assessment was specified in accordance with AWMF guidelines (systematic search, selection, compilation of evidence tables) for those recommendations which could not be adapted or had to be newly created. For newly developed Recommendations and Statements, appropriate key questions were formulated and a systematic search was carried out using aggregated sources of evidence (meta-analyses, systematic reviews, etc.) as well as individual publications in specific cases. A suitable list of titles and abstracts up to and including the identification of the full text were selected by two independent raters. After the search and selection processes were completed, the necessary evidence tables which formed the basis for the consensus conferences were compiled by the Methods group (financial support was provided and allowed a researcher to be specifically hired for this purpose). The classification system of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (version 2009) was used to grade the evidence. To update this guideline, Recommendations and Statements were adopted and levels of recommendation ( Table 4 ) were determined during two structured consensus conferences which were preceded by a preliminary online ballot.

The guideline report provides an overview of the search strategies and selection processes used to select the literature and to formulate and grade the recommendations.

IV  Guideline

1  Treatment of primary breast cancer

1.1  Surgical treatment for invasive carcinoma

1.1.1  General recommendations
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.19. a) The basic therapy for all non-advanced breast cancers is complete resection of the tumor (R0 status). A 1a 1 ,  2
b) The resection margin status has a prognostic effect on invasive breast cancer. There is a significant association between resection margin status (positive vs. negative) and local rate of recurrence. A 1a 3
1.1.2  Breast-conserving therapy

Randomized clinical studies have shown that if certain clinical and histological parameters are taken into account, breast-conserving therapy achieves identical survival rates to those of mastectomy.

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.20. a) The goal of surgical therapy is complete removal of the tumor. Breast-conserving therapy (BCT) followed by full breast radiotherapy is equivalent to mastectomy alone in terms of survival rates. 1a 4 ,  5 ,  6 ,  7 ,  8 ,  9 ,  10
b) All appropriate patients, whether or not they have previously had primary systemic therapy, must be informed about the possibility of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and about mastectomy with the options of primary or secondary reconstruction. EC
1.1.3  Mastectomy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.21. a) Mastectomy must be performed if any of the following indications are present:
  • Incomplete removal of the tumor (incl. any intraductal component), even after secondary resection

  • Inflammatory breast cancer (generally even in cases with pathological complete remission)

  • When follow-up radiation of the breast after breast-conserving therapy is contra-indicated but radiation is absolutely indicated

  • at the request of the patient who has been fully informed about her range of options

A 2b 11 ,  12 ,  13
b) If the resection margins are tumor-free, mastectomy may also be performed as a skin-sparing procedure with or without preservation of the NAC. 0 2a 14 ,  15 ,  16 ,  17
c) Depending on the tumor location and tumor size, mastectomy may be necessary in individual cases, even if multiple cancers are present. 0 2a 18 ,  19 ,  20 ,  21 ,  22 ,  23 ,  24 ,  25
d) Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy to reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer should not be carried out in non-mutation carriers or patients with no evidence of high familial risk. B 2b 26 ,  27 ,  28
1.1.4  Reconstructive plastic surgery procedures
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.22. Every patient scheduled for mastectomy must be informed about the options of having immediate or subsequent breast reconstruction or the option of forgoing reconstructive procedures; these patients should be offered the opportunity to contact other similarly affected people and self-help groups or organizations. A 2b 16 ,  29 ,  30
1.1.5  Axillary surgery
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.23. a) Axillary staging is an essential part of the surgical therapy of invasive breast cancer. EC
b) Staging must include sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) even if the lymph node status is unremarkable on palpation and ultrasound. A 1a 30 ,  31 ,  32
c) Clinically significant lymph nodes that are negative on biopsy should also be resected during SLNB. B 2b 30 ,  33
d) Patients with pT1–pT2/cN0 tumors who undergo breast-conserving surgery followed by percutaneous radiation by tangential opposing fields (tangential radiation therapy) and who have one or two positive sentinel lymph nodes should not undergo axillary dissection. B 1b 31
e) Patients who have mastectomy or to whom the above-listed criteria do not apply should undergo axillary dissection or receive axillary radiotherapy. B 1b 31 ,  34
f) Targeted therapy of the lymph drainage areas (surgery, radiotherapy) must not be carried out if the patient only has micro-metastasis. B 1b 35 ,  36
g) Patients treated with primary systemic therapy (PST) and whose lymph node status on palpation and ultrasound is negative prior to treatment should have SLN after PST. B 2b 37 ,  38
h) Patients treated with primary systemic therapy (PST) whose nodal status on punch biopsy is positive (cN1) prior to treatment but whose nodal status after PST is clinically negative (ycN0) should undergo axillary dissection. B 2b 38 ,  39
i) Patients treated with primary systemic therapy (PST) who have a positive nodal status before and after PST must undergo axillary dissection. EC
j) Patients must not undergo axillary staging if there is evidence of distant metastasis. EC

1.2  Adjuvant radiation therapy for breast cancer

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.36. After breast-conserving surgery for invasive carcinoma the affected breast must be treated with radiotherapy.
Provided the resection margins were tumor-free, patients with a clearly limited life expectancy (< 10 years) and a small (pT1), node-negative (pN0), hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative tumor and endocrine adjuvant therapy may avoid radiation therapy and accept the increased risk of local recurrence after receiving individual counselling.
Note for all Recommendations: all single positions are OR conjunctions. AND conjunctions are represented by “and”.
A 1a 40 ,  41 ,  42 ,  43 ,  44 ,  45 ,  46 ,  47
4.37. Radiotherapy of the breast should be administered in hypofractionated doses (total dose: approx. 40 Gy in approx. 15 – 16 fractions over approx. 3 to 5 weeks) or may be administered as a standard fractionated regimen (total dose: approx. 50 Gy in approx. 25 – 28 fractions over approx. 5 – 6 weeks). B/0 1a 48 ,  49 ,  50 ,  51 ,  52 ,  53 ,  54
4.38. Local dose escalation (boost radiotherapy) of the tumor bed reduces the local rate of recurrence in the breast without achieving a significant survival benefit.
Boost radiotherapy
  • must therefore be carried out in all patients aged ≤ 50 years and

  • should only be carried out in patients aged > 51 years if they have an increased risk of local recurrence (G3, HER2-positive, triple-negative, >T1).

A/B 1a 55 ,  56 ,  57 ,  58
4.39. Partial breast irradiation alone (as an alternative to secondary whole breast irradiation) may be carried out in patients with a low risk of recurrence. 0 1a 59 ,  60 ,  61 ,  62 ,  63 ,  64
4.40. Postoperative radiotherapy of the thoracic wall after mastectomy reduces the risk of loco-regional recurrence and improves the survival of patients with locally advanced, node-positive breast cancer. A 1a 65
4.41. Radiation of the thoracic wall after mastectomy is indicated in the following situations:
  • pT4

  • pT3 pN0 R0 when additional risk factors are present (lymph node invasion (L1), G3 grading, premenopausal, age < 50 years)

  • R1/R2 resection and no possibility of a second curative resection

a) Post-mastectomy radiation must be carried out as a standard procedure if more than 3 axillary lymph nodes are affected.
b) If 1 – 3 axillary lymph nodes show tumor involvement, post-mastectomy radiation must be carried out if the patient has an increased risk of recurrence (e.g. HER2-positive, triple-negative, G3, L1, Ki-67 > 30%, > 25% of excised lymph nodes show tumor involvement; age ≤ 45 years with additional risk factors such as medial tumor location or tumor size > 2 cm, or ER-negative).
c) PMRT should not be carried out if 1 – 3 axillary lymph nodes show tumor involvement and the tumor has a low risk of local recurrence (pT1, G1, ER-positive, HER2-negative, at least 3 characteristics must apply).
d) For all other patients with 1 – 3 axillary lymph nodes with tumor involvement, the individual indication for treatment must be decided on by an interdisciplinary board.
A 1a 65 ,  66 ,  67 ,  68 ,  69 ,  70 ,  71 ,  72 ,  73 ,  74 ,  75 ,  76 ,  77 ,  78 ,  79
4.42. After primary (neoadjuvant) systemic therapy, the indication for post-mastectomy radiotherapy must be based on the clinical staging prior to treatment; for pCR (ypT0 and ypN0) the indication for treatment must be decided on by an interdisciplinary tumor board and depends on the patientʼs individual risk profile. A 1a 80 ,  81 ,  82 ,  83
Pretreatment Post-treatment RT-BCT 1 PMRT 2 RT-LAW 3
1 with standard tangential treatment
2 if the patient underwent a mastectomy
3 together with PMRT or RT because of BCT
4 Criteria for a high risk of recurrence:
pN0 premenopausal, high risk: central or medial location, and (G2–3 and ER/PgR-negative)
pN1a high risk: central or medial location and (G2–3 or ER/PgR-negative) or premenopausal, lateral location and (G2–3 or ER/PgR-negative)
locally advanced pCR/no pCR yes Yes yes
cT1/2 cN1+ ypT1+ o. ypN1+ (no pCR) yes yes yes
cT1/2 cN1+ ypT0/is ypN0 (SLNE ≥ 3 LN) yes cases with high risk 4
cT1/2 cN0 (US obligatory) ypT0/is ypN0 (SLNE ≥ 3 LN) yes no no
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.43. Adjuvant irradiation of regional lymph drainage areas improves disease-free survival and overall survival rates in a subgroup of patients. 1a 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
4.44. a) Irradiation of the supra-/infraclavicular lymph nodes may be an option for patients with pN0 or pN1mi stage disease under the following circumstances if all of the following conditions are met:
  • premenopausal and central or medial tumor location and G2–3 and ER/PgR-negative.

0 2a/2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
b) Irradiation of the supra-/infraclavicular lymph nodes should be carried out in patients with 1 – 3 affected lymph nodes in the following circumstances:
  • central or medial location and (G2–3 or ER/PgR-negative)

  • premenopausal, lateral location and (G2–3 or ER/PgR-negative)

B 2a 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
c) Irradiation of the supra-/infraclavicular lymph nodes must be generally carried out in all patients with > 3 affected axillary lymph nodes. A 2a 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
4.45. a) Irradiation of the internal thoracic artery lymph nodes may be carried out in patients without or with minimal axillary involvement (pN0 or pN1mi) in the following circumstances:
  • premenopausal and central or medial location and G2–3 and ER/PgR-negative

0 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
b) Irradiation of the internal thoracic artery lymph nodes should be carried out in patients with 1 – 3 affected lymph nodes in the following circumstances:
  • central or medial location and (G2–3 or ER/PgR-negative)

  • premenopausal, lateral location and (G2–3 or ER/PgR-negative)

B 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
c) Irradiation of the internal thoracic artery lymph nodes should be carried out in patients with > 3 affected axillary lymph nodes in the following circumstances:
  • G2–3 or ER/PgR-negative

B 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
d) If tumor involvement of the internal thoracic artery lymph nodes is confirmed, they should be treated with radiotherapy. B 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
e) If patients have an increased cardiac risk or are receiving treatment with trastuzumab, the decision whether or not to irradiate the internal thoracic artery lymph nodes must be made on an individual basis by an interdisciplinary tumor board. A 4 91 ,  92
4.46. Expanded axillary radiation may be used to treat patients with 1 – 2 affected axillary sentinel lymph nodes if no axillary dissection is carried out or if the interdisciplinary tumor board agrees that no further local axillary therapy should be carried out (analogous to ACOSOG Z0011). The decision about the appropriate approach must be taken by an interdisciplinary tumor board. 0/A 2b 35 ,  93 ,  94 ,  95
4.47. Radiotherapy of lymph drainage areas should be administered in standard fractions (5 × week 1.8 to 2.0 Gy, total dose: approx. 50 Gy over a period of approx. 5 – 6 weeks) or in hypofractionated doses (total dose: approx. 40 Gy in approx. 15 – 16 fractions over a period of approx. 3 to 5 weeks). EC
4.48. Treatment of patients with primary inoperable or inflammatory cancer must consist of primary systemic therapy followed by surgery and postoperative radiotherapy or, if the cancer continues to be inoperable, radiotherapy alone or preoperative radiotherapy. A 1b 96 ,  97
4.49. a) Postoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy must be administered sequentially.
Note: No specific sequence (chemotherapy first or radiotherapy first) has been confirmed as superior. The sequence of chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy is the established sequence in clinical practice.
A 1b 98 ,  99 ,  100 ,  101
b) If only RT is administered, treatment with RT should commence within a period of 8 weeks postoperatively. 102 ,  103
c) Adjuvant endocrine therapy can be started independently of any radiotherapy. (1a)
Therapy with trastuzumab may be continued during radiotherapy. If the patient is receiving simultaneous irradiation of the internal thoracic artery lymph nodes, the appropriate approach must be decided on by an interdisciplinary tumor board. (4)
91 ,  92 ,  104 ,  105

1.3  Systemic adjuvant therapy (endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, antibody therapy)

1.3.1  Choice of adjuvant therapy and classification of risk

The 2009 St. Gallen Recommendations have pointed out the significance of endocrine sensitivity and the 2011 Recommendations have highlighted the importance of molecular subtypes as the decisive criteria whether adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated or not 106 . The markers ER, PgR, HER2 and Ki-67, which are identified by immunohistochemistry, are considered surrogate parameters for different molecular subtypes 106 . ER-positive and/or PgR-positive, HER2-negative tumors with low proliferation rates are classified as luminal A; if the proliferation rates are high, they are classified as luminal B. It should be noted that there is currently no validated threshold value for Ki-67 (e.g. for classifying a tumor as luminal A vs. luminal B or to confirm the decision for/against adjuvant chemotherapy).

Indications for adjuvant chemotherapy:

  • simultaneous anti-HER2 therapy with trastuzumab over a period of 1 year combined with (neo-) adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard approach for HER2-positive tumors

  • non-endocrine-sensitive tumors (ER- and PgR-negative)

  • tumors which may not be endocrine-sensitive

  • node-positive tumors (studies are currently being carried out to evaluate whether patients with low numbers of affected lymph nodes [1 – 3 affected LN] and favorable tumor biology [luminal A] may not need adjuvant chemotherapy)

  • G III

  • young age at onset (< 35 years)

Chemotherapy is always indicated if the individual expected benefit is higher than potential side effects and long-term negative effects. This requires careful, in-depth counselling and discussions with the patient, particularly if the expected benefit is minimal.

1.3.2  Endocrine therapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
* ≥ 10% progesterone-receptor-positive tumor cell nuclei
4.50. a) Patients with estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive* invasive tumors must receive endocrine therapy. A 1a 30 ,  107 ,  108 ,  109 ,  110
b) Endocrine therapy must only be started after chemotherapy has been completed but it can be administered in parallel to radiotherapy. A 1a 30 ,  45 ,  107 ,  108 ,  109 ,  110
4.51. After 5 years of tamoxifen the decision whether or not to continue endocrine therapy must be re-evaluated in every patient with ER+ breast cancer.
When considering whether or not to continue endocrine therapy, the risk of recurrence and the therapy-related side effects (toxicity, decreased adherence) should be weighed up.
The patientʼs current menopausal status must be taken into account when selecting the appropriate endocrine therapy.
A/B Adapt. from guide-line 111
4.52. Premenopausal patients must receive tamoxifen therapy for at least 5 years.
Antiestrogen therapy with tamoxifen 20 mg per day must be administered for a period of 5 – 10 years depending on the risk of recurrence or until recurrence occurs.
Whether or not expanded therapy is indicated depends on the risk of recurrence and the patientʼs wishes.
A 1a 107 ,  108 ,  112 ,  113 ,  114
4.53. a) High-risk patients with ER+ breast cancer who are still premenopausal after completing chemotherapy may be treated with an aromatase inhibitor after suppressing ovarian function. EC
b) Suppression of ovarian function alone can be considered in premenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer who cannot receive tamoxifen or do not want to be treated with tamoxifen; suppression can be achieved either by administering a GnRHa or by oophorectomy. EC
c) Suppression of ovarian function (by GnRHa or bilateral oophorectomy) in addition to tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor must only be considered in patients with a high risk of recurrence who are premenopausal after receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Suppression of ovarian function is mandatory when treatment consists of administering aromatase inhibitor. A Adapt. from guide-line 115
4.54. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal patients with ER+ breast cancer should include an aromatase inhibitor. B 1b 115
1.3.3  Adjuvant chemotherapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.55. a) Adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated for:
  • HER2-positive tumors (from pT1b, N0; pT1a, N0 if additional risks are present: e.g., G3, ER/PR-negative, high Ki67 levels)

  • Triple-negative tumors (ER- and PgR-negative, HER2-negative)

Luminal-B tumors with a high risk of recurrence (high Ki-67 levels, G3, high-risk multigene assay, young age at onset, lymph nodes show tumor involvement)
B 1a 4 ,  11 ,  116 ,  117 ,  118 ,  119
b) Chemotherapy must be administered in the recommended doses.
Under-dosing or reducing the number of cycles risks reducing the efficacy of chemotherapy.
A 1a 118 ,  120 ,  121 ,  122 ,  123 ,  124
4.56. Cytostatic agents may be administered simultaneously or sequentially (according to the evidence-based protocols).
Dose-dense therapies should be used to treated suitable patients with a high tumor-related risk of mortality.
B 1b. 125 ,  126 ,  127 ,  128 ,  129 ,  130
4.57. Adjuvant chemotherapy should include a taxane and an anthracycline. B 1a 116 ,  126 ,  131 ,  132 ,  133 ,  134 ,  135 ,  136 ,  137 ,  138 ,  139
6 cycles of TC (docetaxel/cyclophosphamide) may be an alternative in patients with moderate clinical risk (≤ 3 affected lymph nodes). 0 1a
Standard adjuvant chemotherapy must take 18 – 24 weeks. A 1a
1.3.4  Neoadjuvant therapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.58. a) Neoadjuvant (primary, preoperative) systemic therapy is considered the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced, primary inoperable or inflammatory breast cancer in the context of a multimodal therapy concept. EC
b) Neoadjuvant systemic therapy should be preferred if the same postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated. EC
4.59. a) If chemotherapy is indicated, it can be administered prior to surgery (neoadjuvant) or after surgery (adjuvant). Both approaches are equivalent with regard to overall survival.
Neoadjuvant therapy may lead to a higher rate of breast-conserving therapies.
1a 140 ,  141 ,  142
b) The effect (pathohistological remission) is greatest for hormone receptor-negative cancers. 1a 140 ,  141 ,  143 ,  144
c) Resection within the new tumor margins is possible if R0 resection can be achieved. EC
4.60. a) Postmenopausal patients with endocrine-sensitive breast cancer, for whom surgery or chemotherapy is not possible or who do not want surgery or chemotherapy, may be treated with primary endocrine therapy. EC
b) Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy is not a standard therapy; neoadjuvant endocrine therapy may be considered in special situations (inoperable cancer, multiple morbidities). EC
4.61. a) If a neoadjuvant chemotherapy combination is used, it should include an anthracycline and a taxane. Preoperative therapy should take 18 – 24 weeks.
HER2-positive tumors for which neoadjuvant chemotherapy is indicated should be treated with trastuzumab. High-risk (clinical/sonographic findings or N+ on punch biopsy, tumor size > 2 cm) HER2-positive patients should additionally receive pertuzumab.
EC
b) Platinum salts increase the complete remission rate (pCR rate) in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) irrespective of their BRCA status. The benefit for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival has not yet been conclusively confirmed. The toxicity is higher. EC
4.62. If anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is adequate, no additional adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for tumor residues in the breast and/or lymph nodes. Post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy treatment should only be carried out in the context of clinical trials. EC
1.3.5  Antibody therapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.63. a) Patients with HER2-overexpressing tumors with a diameter ≥ 1 cm (immunohistochemical score 3+ and/or ISH-positive) must receive (neo) adjuvant treatment with an anthracycline followed by a taxane in combination with trastuzumab. Trastuzumab must be administered over a total period of one year. A 1b 16 ,  29 ,  30
b) Adjuvant treatment with trastuzumab should preferably be started at the same time as the taxane phase of adjuvant chemotherapy. B 2a 145
c) If chemotherapy is indicated to treat HER2+ tumors ≤ 5 mm, trastuzumab should be additionally administered.
Six cycles of TCH (docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab) every 3 weeks may also be recommended as an adjuvant treatment. The cardiotoxicity of this approach is lower than after treatment with anthracyclines
EC
1.3.6  Bone-targeted therapy
1.3.6.1  Therapy and prevention of cancer treatment-induced bone loss

The risk of bone density loss with destruction of bone structure and the risk of therapy-related osteoporosis followed by an increased risk of fractures is significantly higher in patients with malignant disease 146 . Apart from such commonly reported changes as immobilization and changes in lifestyle (e.g. discontinuation of estrogen therapy), it is primarily drug therapies that are responsible for osseous changes. Supportive therapies (e.g. cortisone preparations) are as likely to damage bones as cytotoxic or endocrine drugs. This issue is becoming increasingly important following the high curative rates for many solid tumors, particularly for breast cancer.

In premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, ovarian function suppression (e.g. using GnRH analogs) alone or in combination with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor and treatment with tamoxifen alone leads to a loss of bone density and an increased incidence of osteoporosis compared to healthy control populations 147 ,  148 ,  149 . The combination of ovarian function suppression with an aromatase inhibitor led to the greatest decrease in bone density 147 .

In postmenopausal women, treatment with aromatase inhibitors also leads to a loss of bone density and an increased incidence of fractures compared to women treated with tamoxifen 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 .

Chemotherapies can also result in a significant loss of bone density 154 ,  155 .

The indication for preventive treatment depends on the patientʼs gender, age and bone density and should take the patientʼs history and lifestyle into account. Primary prevention of cancer therapy-induced bone loss should be considered if patients present with a special combination of risks 156 ,  157 . These include advanced age, low body mass index, nicotine abuse, therapy with aromatase inhibitors, familial disposition, long-term cortisone therapy, immobility, endocrine disease, medication (Confederation of German-speaking Scientific Osteology Society, http://www.dv-osteologie.org ) 158 .

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.64. In patients with an increased familial or cancer therapy-related risk of bone loss, bone density measurements should be carried out prior to starting treatment.
Bone density measurements should be repeated at regular intervals depending on the results and the presence of additional risk factors.
EC
4.65. Depending on the patientʼs individual combination of risk factors for developing osteoporosis, preventive treatment should be considered to prevent cancer therapy-induced osteoporosis ( http://www.dv-osteologie.org ; ESMO bone health guidance). EC
4.66. Osteoprotective therapy should be considered for premenopausal patients receiving GnRH and/or TAM and postmenopausal patients receiving treatment with AI. B 1b 147 ,  150 ,  152 ,  158
4.67. Hormone therapy with estrogens should not be used to prevent cancer therapy-related osteoporosis in breast cancer patients as an increased rate of recurrence cannot be excluded, particularly in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. B 1a 159
4.68. In addition to these general recommendations, bisphosphonates or denosumab may be used for primary prevention of cancer therapy-induced bone loss. EC
4.69. A reduced risk of fractures associated with endocrine therapy has only been clearly confirmed for denosumab but has not yet been confirmed for bisphosphonates. A 1 150
4.70. Bone-targeted therapy to prevent therapy-related osteoporosis should be carried out for the duration of endocrine therapy. EC

1.3.6.1.1  Therapy for cancer therapy-induced osteoporosis

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.71. It is important to exclude bone metastasis if a bone fracture occurs which was not caused by sufficiently powerful trauma. EC
1.3.6.2  Adjuvant therapy to improve bone metastasis-free survival and overall survival

According to the “seed and soil” hypothesis, luminal breast cancer cells are particularly prone to metastasize in bone where they are then detected in the form of disseminated tumor cells 160 ,  161 ,  162 . Bisphosphonates and probably also denosumab appear to have a therapeutic effect with regard to the persistence of these cells and thus on the incidence of secondary bone metastasis 163 .

Two meta-analyses evaluated studies on the adjuvant use of different bisphosphonates. Ben-Aharon and colleagues found a positive effect on survival in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer (HR 0.81 [0.69 – 0.95]) 164 . In their meta-analysis, Coleman and colleagues reported a significant positive effect on bone metastasis-free survival of 34% and on overall survival of 17% for postmenopausal patients (including premenopausal patients with ovarian function suppression from GnRH analogs; ABCSG-12) 165 .

The meta-analyses found no significant benefit for premenopausal patients (without ovarian function suppression from GnRH analogs) with regard to disease-free survival, bone metastasis-free survival and overall survival. No effect on prognosis was detected in an evaluation of a secondary endpoint carried out in a subpopulation of premenopausal patients (the majority of whom did not have suppression of ovarian function), despite the high therapy density at the start of treatment (AZURE trial 158 ).

To date, no bisphosphonate has been approved for use in adjuvant therapy in the European Union, meaning that treatment can currently only be carried out as an off-label use.

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.72. Adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy prolongs bone metastasis-free survival and overall survival in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer and in premenopausal patients with ovarian function suppression (off-label use). A 1 164 ,  165
4.73. It is currently not possible to recommend the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates or denosumab for premenopausal patients with suppression of ovarian function. 0 1b 158 ,  164 ,  165
1.3.6.3  Bone-targeted therapy for patients with bone metastasis

The most common metastases of breast cancer occur in bone marrow. Luminal tumors have a particular affinity to the skeleton. The most common complications of bone metastases are pain, pathological fractures, vertebral compression syndrome, and hypercalcemia 166 . If the aforementioned symptoms (with the exception of pain) occur, then morbidity is significantly increased. A number of different measures can be initiated to prevent these serious complications.

The interdisciplinary AWMF S3 guideline 032-054OL “Supportive Therapy for Oncology Patients” provides a detailed discussion of the diagnosis and therapy of bone metastases 167 ).

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.74. Patients must go to the dentist before starting adjuvant osteoprotecttive therapy. The Recommendations of the S3 guideline on “Antiresorptive drug-related necrosis of the jaw” apply. EC
1.3.7  Lifestyle factors which can be influenced
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
4.75. Patients must be motivated to carry out physical exercise and to normalize their body weight (if their BMI is high). Patients should receive support and assistance. It is particularly recommended that patients:
a) avoid physical inactivity and return to normal daily activities as early as possible after diagnosis (LoE 2a)
b) work towards achieving the goal of 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of strenuous physical activity per week (LoE 1a)
A 2a/1a 168 ,  169 ,  170 ,  171
4.76. Patients should be offered weight training programs, particularly when they are undergoing chemotherapy and hormone therapy. B 1b 172 ,  173 ,  174 ,  175
4.77. Patients should be advised and taught to do regular sports activities and physical exercise to treat breast cancer-associated fatigue. B 1a 176 ,  177 ,  178 ,  179
4.78. If manifest chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy is present, patients should have exercise therapy to improve functionality.
This may include:
  • balance exercises

  • sensorimotor training

  • coordination training

  • vibration training

  • fine motor skills training

B 1a/2a 173 ,  174 ,  180 ,  181
4.79. Patients with lymphedema after surgery for breast cancer must be started on monitored, gradually progressive weight training to treat lymphedema. B 1b 182 ,  183 ,  184 ,  185 ,  186 ,  187
4.80. Patients should be counselled (a) about achieving and maintaining a healthy body weight, and (b) if they are overweight or obese, about how to limit their consumption of highly-calorific food and drinks and how to increase their physical activity to promote moderate weight loss and maintain it over the long-term. A Adapt. From guide-line 188
4.81. Patients should be counselled on how to achieve and adhere to a nutritional program rich in vegetables, fruit, wholegrain and pulses which contains few saturated fats and only limited alcohol consumption. A Adapt. from guide-line 188
4.82. Patients must receive counselling not to smoke; if necessary, smokers must be recommended smoking cessation programs. A 2a 188
4.83. To prevent late recurrence (> 5 years after primary diagnosis), patients with receptor-positive disease should avoid a daily alcohol consumption of > 12 g pure alcohol. B 2a 189

1.4  Breast cancer during pregnancy and lactation, pregnancy after breast cancer, fertility preservation

1.4.1  Pregnancy after breast cancer
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
7.1. Patients who have had breast cancer must not be counselled against becoming pregnant. This applies irrespective of their hormone status. A 3a 190 ,  191
7.2. a) The interval until becoming pregnant after breast cancer is not correlated with a poorer prognosis. A 3a 190
b) The risk of recurrence depends on the tumor biology and the stage of disease. This must be discussed during counselling for any subsequent pregnancy. EC
7.3. The longer the endocrine therapy, the better the chances for a cure (see Chapter 4.7.2 Endocrine therapy). If the patient wished to become pregnant before completing endocrine therapy, then endocrine therapy should be continued after the patient has given birth and stopped breastfeeding. EC
7.4. a) Patients can try to become pregnant after breast cancer with the help of reproductive medical procedures. 0 4 192 ,  193 ,  194
b) The chances of success (i.e. an intact pregnancy or baby) are lower for breast cancer patients when autologous eggs are used compared to women without breast cancer. 2c 195
1.4.2  Breast cancer during pregnancy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
7.5. a) Treatment (systemic therapy, surgery, RT) for breast cancer (in pregnant patients) during pregnancy must be as similar as possible to treatment administered to younger, non-pregnant patients with breast cancer. EC
b) Standard chemotherapy with anthracyclines and taxanes may be administered in the 2nd and 3rd trimester of pregnancy. 0 2b 196 ,  197 ,  198 ,  199 ,  200
c) Anti-HER2 therapy must not be administered during pregnancy. A 3a 196 ,  197 ,  199
d) Endocrine therapy must not be administered during pregnancy. EC
e) Surgery may be carried out in the same way as in non-pregnant patients. EC
1.4.3  Fertility preservation
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
7.6. a) Patients of childbearing age with breast cancer must receive counselling about fertility and preserving fertility before starting cancer treatment. EC
b) The administration of a GnRH analog before starting chemotherapy may be considered in all women who wish to preserve their ovarian function/fertility. 0 1b 200 ,  201 ,  202 ,  203 ,  204 ,  205 ,  206

1.5  Breast cancer in older patients

1.5.1  General comments
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
8.1. Therapeutic decisions for older patients should be based on current standard recommendations but also take account of the patientʼs biological age, life-expectancy and preferences; the benefits and risks of such therapy must be weighed up. EC
1.5.2  Geriatric patients
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
8.2. Patients who are older than 75 years should have a geriatric assessment or screening using a geriatric assessment algorithm, particularly if chemotherapy or surgery requiring a general anesthetic is planned, with the aim of improving therapy adherence, tolerance of chemotherapy and possibly survival. B 2a 207 ,  208 ,  209 ,  210
8.3. Geriatric assessment and management should cover therapy-relevant geriatric domains (particularly functionality-related parameters such as activities of daily living, mobility, cognition, falls, and morbidity-related parameters such as multiple medication, nutrition, fatigue, and number of comorbidities) in order to adapt the choice of therapy accordingly and start supportive measures. B 2a 30 ,  211 ,  212 ,  213 ,  214
1.5.3  Local therapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
8.4. a) Surgical therapy to treat older patients is basically no different from the surgical therapy used to treat younger patients. EC
b) Patients with ER/PR-positive breast cancer: primary endocrine therapy should be started if surgery is not carried out because of the patientʼs frailty (e.g., comorbidities and higher anesthetic risk) or because the patient rejects surgery. When deciding on the appropriate therapy, any drug-related specific side effects, particularly the risk of thrombosis/embolism (tamoxifen) and the risk of bone fractures (aromatase inhibitors), must be taken into consideration. B 1b 215
c) Patients with ER- and PR-negative breast cancer: if surgery under general anesthesia is not carried out because of the patientʼs frailty (e.g. comorbidities and increased surgical risk) or because the patient rejects surgery, surgery under local anesthesia, primary radiotherapy or purely palliative medical treatment may be considered. EC
1.5.4  Adjuvant endocrine therapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
8.5. Endocrine therapy is recommended for patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. Endocrine therapy may be dispensed with in individual cases (i.e., when treating patients with very low-grade tumors or very favorable tumor biology or if the patient is very frail). 0 2b 213 ,  216
1.5.5  Adjuvant chemotherapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
8.6. As patients become frailer with increasing age, their reduced physical reserves and changes in their pharmacokinetics may lower the tolerability of chemotherapy and increase the rate of side effects requiring treatment. EC
8.7. Chemotherapy may be associated with a significant reduction in cognitive performance in older women aged > 70 years. 2b 217 ,  218
8.8. Preference should be given to anthracycline and/or taxane-based combinations or sequential regimens. The increased risk of cardiotoxicity and of MDS/AML associated with anthracyclines must be taken into consideration. B 2a 219 ,  220 ,  221 ,  222 ,  223 ,  224 ,  225 ,  226 ,  227
1.5.6  Anti-HER2 therapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
8.10. Treatment is analogous to the treatment administered to younger patients and consists of trastuzumab combined sequential anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy.
It is important to be aware of the increased risk of cardiotoxicity associated with this approach. (EC)
An anthracycline-free combination consisting of carboplatin-docetaxel or docetaxel-cyclophosphamide may be used. (1b)
EC/1b 214 ,  228 ,  229 ,  230
8.11. Paclitaxel administered weekly (over 12 weeks) with trastuzumab may be used to treat T1–2 (up to 3 cm) pN0 tumors. 0 2b 231 ,  232

1.6  Breast cancer in men

Breast cancer in men should be diagnosed and treated by an interdisciplinary group of specialists. Because of the type of tumor biology and the similarities to breast cancer in women, specialists for gynecologic oncology must also be involved when treating breast cancer in men. An interdisciplinary cooperation between breast centers, gynecologists, urologists and andrologists is particularly advisable when treating sexual disorders caused by therapy with tamoxifen, men with BRCA mutations 233 who have an increased associated risk of prostate cancer, and men with breast cancer who must be treated for benign prostate syndrome 234 .

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
9.1. a) Patients must be encouraged to ask for medical counselling early on and provided with information about disease, particularly about symptoms and changes in the breast; they must be encouraged to monitor themselves.
b) If there is a suspicion of malignancy, the initial investigation must include taking the patientʼs history, clinical examination, mammography, and ultrasound examination of the breast and of the lymphatic drainage areas. There are no data on the diagnostic use of CM-MRI.
c) If there are malignant findings in the breast and axilla, further examinations with staging/investigation into the extent and spread of disease must be carried out in accordance with the recommendations made for women in the same situation, although there are no data on the diagnostic use of CM-MRI.
EC
9.2. a) The aim of surgery is complete resection of the tumor. Surgery should consist of a mastectomy. Breast-conserving surgery should be considered if the tumor is small enough.
b) If the axilla are clinically unremarkable (cN0), sentinel lymph node resection must be carried out, with the same rules applying as for women.
EC
9.3. Irrespective of surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy of the thoracic wall and, if necessary, of the lymphatic drainage areas (the indications for this are the same as for women) must be carried out to treat large tumors (≥ 2 cm) and axillary lymph node involvement if the hormone receptor status is negative. EC
9.4. When deciding whether adjuvant chemotherapy and antibody therapy (anti-HER2) are indicated, the same rules apply as for women and the same therapy must be carried out. EC
9.5. Patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer must receive adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen, usually over a period of 5 years. There are no data available about treatment for more than 5 years. It may be considered in individual cases in the same way it would be considered when treating women. EC
9.6. a) Metastatic disease should be treated according to the same rules as those used to treat women.
b) It is not clear whether aromatase inhibitors are sufficiently effective in men without suppression of testicular function. Aromatase inhibitors should therefore be administered together with suppression of testicular function.
EC
9.7. Men with breast cancer should be offered the opportunity to participate in trials/be included in tumor registers. EC
9.8. Genetic testing must be recommended to all men with breast cancer. EC
9.9. The follow-up regimen including imaging evaluations must be analogous to the approach used for women. EC
9.10. The patient should be provided with qualified and relevant gender-specific information (in print and online) by the professionals who treat them, and the patient should be helped to access the targeted support and information available from self-help groups. EC

Table 5  Risk factors for men to develop breast cancer.

Age Unimodal age distribution; the highest incidence is in the 71st year of life
Ethnicity Increased risk for men of African or Caribbean descent, who usually also have an advanced stage of disease when they are first diagnosed
Germline mutations If the patientʼs family has a positive history of germline mutations for both sexes, they have a 2.5-fold higher risk of disease; BRCA-2 mutations were confirmed in 4 – 40% of all cases; RAD51B gene modifications increase the risk by 50%
Endocrine causes Exposure to exogenous estrogen, e.g. hormone therapy for transsexuals, treatment of prostate cancer, professional exposure
Increased endogenous estrogen synthesis: Klinefelter syndrome, obesity
Decreased levels of androgen: orchiectomy, undescended testicle, mumps orchitis, cirrhosis of the liver
Environment Lifestyle: obesity, lack of exercise, excessive consumption of alcohol
Exposure to radiation: nuclear weapons, radiotherapy, diagnostic radiology
Professional exposure: high temperatures, petroleum, exhaust gases

2  Therapy (Recurrence/Metastasis)

2.1  Therapy for local/loco-regional recurrence

2.1.1  Local (intramammary) recurrence
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.7. a) If there is a suspicion of loco-regional recurrence, the first step must be histological verification including repeat determination of ER, PR and HER2/neu status and complete re-staging to exclude metastasis and make it possible to plan an interdisciplinary therapy strategy. EC
b) The highest level of local tumor control in patients with intramammary recurrence (DCIS/invasive carcinoma) is achieved by secondary mastectomy. EC
c) If the initial situation is favorable (e.g. DCIS or invasive carcinoma with a lengthy recurrence-free interval and no skin involvement), then breast-conserving surgery can be carried out again after careful counselling of the patient. 0 4a 235 ,  236 ,  237 ,  238
d) Prior to carrying out another breast-conserving surgery, the possibility of carrying out repeat radiotherapy (partial breast irradiation) should be investigated and discussed by an interdisciplinary tumor conference; if necessary, the patient should have an appointment with a radiotherapist. EC
e) After breast-conserving surgery, the patient must be informed about the increased risk of repeat intramammary recurrence. EC
2.1.2  Local recurrence after mastectomy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.8. Any isolated recurrence in the thoracic wall must be completely resected (R0) where possible. If the main site of recurrence is the ribs/intercostal muscles, the decision for therapy should be taken after interdisciplinary consultation with a specialist for thoracic surgery. EC
5.9. Local therapy (surgical intervention, radiotherapy) may be considered for symptomatic local recurrence (e.g. ulceration, pain) to reduce symptoms, even if the patient has distant metastasis. EC
2.1.3  Axillary lymph node recurrence
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.10. In the event of axillary lymph node recurrence, local recurrence of disease should be controlled by repeat surgical axillary intervention, if need be with radiotherapy. Thoracic CT should be done preoperatively to identify the extent of LN metastasis. EC
2.1.4  Drug therapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.11. Systemic therapy after R0 resection of loco-regional recurrence must be considered to prolong the disease-free interval and overall survival. EC
2.1.5  Radiotherapy
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.12. a) The question whether radiation is indicated after surgery for recurrence must be discussed and decided by an interdisciplinary tumor board.
Postoperative radiotherapy should be carried out if no radiotherapy was carried out previously or if the local recurrence was not radically resected (R1–2).
EC
b) Palliative radiotherapy, if necessary in combination with chemotherapy, may be used to treat inoperable local recurrence and control symptoms. EC
c) If there is intramammary recurrence or recurrence in the thoracic wall after breast-conserving surgery (R0) or mastectomy (R0) which was not followed by radiotherapy, the decision whether adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated must follow the recommendations for primary disease. EC
d) If intramammary recurrence occurs after breast-conserving surgery (R0) followed by radiotherapy, the question whether adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated must be discussed by an interdisciplinary tumor board. Radiotherapy may be indicated for patients who did not experience serious late sequelae after the 1st radiotherapy. EC
e) In the event of recurrence in the thoracic wall after mastectomy (R0) followed by radiotherapy, the question whether repeat radiotherapy is indicated for local control should be discussed by an interdisciplinary tumor board. EC
f) In the event of recurrence in the thoracic wall after primary mastectomy without subsequent radiotherapy, adjuvant radiotherapy should be carried out after resection of the recurrence (R0) if additional risk factors are present (very small resection margins, rpN+, G3, lymph node invasion). EC
g) In the event of recurrence in the thoracic wall after primary mastectomy without subsequent radiotherapy, the question whether repeat adjuvant radiotherapy is indicated after resection of the recurrence (R0) when additional risk factors are present (very small resection margins, rpN+, G3, lymph node invasion) should be discussed by an interdisciplinary tumor board. Radiotherapy may be indicated for patients who did not experience serious late sequelae after the 1st radiotherapy. EC
h) Additional radiotherapy must be recommended if recurrence occurs in an area which was not previously irradiated, the recurrence was not completely resected (R1/R2), and the risk associated with complete surgical resection (R0) cannot be justified. EC
i) An interdisciplinary tumor board must decide whether repeat radiotherapy is indicated when recurrence occurs after prior radiotherapy, the recurrence was not completely resected (R1/R2), and the risk associated with complete surgical resection (R0) cannot be justified.
Radiotherapy may be indicated in patients who did not experience serious late sequelae after the 1st radiotherapy.
EC

2.2  Distant metastases

2.2.1  Systemic therapy for metastatic breast cancer
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.13. Endocrine therapy ± targeted therapy is the therapy of choice for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative cancer. Endocrine therapy is not indicated in patients for whom rapid remission is important to avoid pronounced symptoms in the affected organ. A 1b 30 ,  239 ,  240 ,  241 ,  242 ,  243
5.14. Combined chemo-endocrine therapy is not recommended. Although this approach can increase the rate of remission, it also leads to increased toxicity without prolonging the progression-free interval or improving overall survival. A 1a 244
5.15. In premenopausal patients, suppression of ovarian function (with GnRH analogs, oophorectomy) combined with tamoxifen is the first-choice therapy if treatment with tamoxifen was not concluded less than 12 months previously. An alternative approach consisting of suppression of ovarian function followed by the same treatment as that recommended for postmenopausal women may be chosen, and endocrine therapy may be combined with CDK 4/6 inhibitors. A 1b 30 ,  242 ,  245 ,  246
5.16. Subsequently, ovarian suppression combined with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant, if necessary in combination with palbociclib, can be used to treat premenopausal patients. As long as ovarian suppression is maintained, treatment may be administered in the same way as therapy for postmenopausal patients. 0 2c/EC 247 ,  248
5.17. In postmenopausal patients, the first step of endocrine treatment for metastasis should consist of an aromatase inhibitor if adjuvant therapy consisted exclusively of tamoxifen or the patient did not receive adjuvant therapy. It is not possible to give a clear recommendation whether primary endocrine treatment should consist of a steroidal or a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor. Letrozole may be combined with a CDK 4/6 inhibitor. A 1a 30 ,  239 ,  242 ,  249 ,  250 ,  251 ,  252
5.18. Treatment with fulvestrant should be carried out after pretreatment with an aromatase inhibitor, although fulvestrant may also be used as a first-line therapy, particularly for patients who have not previously received endocrine therapy. EC
5.19. No specific therapy sequence is recommended. A combination treatment consisting of letrozole or fulvestrant with a CDK 4/6 inhibitor represents an alternative to monotherapy.
Follow-up therapy with exemestane and the mTOR inhibitor everolimus may be administered after anti-hormonal pretreatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor.
Studies have shown that combination therapies prolonged progression-free survival but it has not yet been proven that they improve overall survival.
EC
5.20. Depending on the patientʼs previous treatment, the next steps in the endocrine treatment sequence for postmenopausal patients consist of administration of antiestrogens, estrogen receptor antagonists, switching from a steroidal to a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor or vice versa, or the use of high-dose progestogens.
If disease progression continues during treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, patients may treated with a combination of letrozole or fulvestrant with palbociclib or a combination of exemestane and everolimus.
EC
2.2.2  Chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.21. Before starting chemotherapy, the patientʼs general condition, co-morbidities and previous therapies must be evaluated and her probable compliance with treatment must be assessed. EC
5.22. Regular evaluations of toxicity (subjective and objective) must be carried out during therapy. Treatment doses and scheduled treatment intervals must follow generally accepted standard regimens or recently published therapy regimens. After determining suitable representative parameters (symptoms, tumor markers, imaging) prior to starting therapy, the effect of treatment must be evaluated at least every 6 – 12 weeks according to clinical requirements. Over time, the intervals between imaging procedures can be extended for patients with sustained remission and a good clinical and laboratory assessment of disease status. EC
5.23. Therapy should be discontinued if the patient has clinically relevant progression or toxicity is intolerable.
Patients should not change to a different chemotherapy regimen unless the patient has documented progression or toxicity is intolerable.
EC
5.24. a) If chemotherapy is indicated, patients not in need of rapid remission should receive sequential chemotherapy. B 1a 253 ,  254
b) A combination therapy consisting of chemotherapy and bevacizumab may improve progression-free survival as a first-line therapy, but this approach is associated with a higher rate of side effects and has no impact on overall survival. 0 1a 255 ,  256 ,  257 ,  258 ,  259 ,  260
c) Polychemotherapy or chemotherapy + bevacizumab may be administered to patients with severe symptoms and rapid tumor growth or aggressive tumor behavior, i.e. to patients who urgently require remission. 0 1a 253 ,  261
2.2.2.1  Bevacizumab for metastatic breast cancer (1st line)

In summary, higher rates of remission and an improved PFS (but no survival benefit) has been reported for additional therapy with bevacizumab, which seems to indicate that combination therapy is the appropriate treatment for patients in urgent need of remission and no combination of risk factors predisposing them to side effects (no previous history of uncontrolled arterial hypertension, cerebrovascular ischemia and deep vein thrombosis). See the long version for more details.

2.2.2.2  Regimens

Specific information on the regimens are available in the long version of this guideline (in German).

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.25. Possible monotherapies can consist of the following substances: alkylating agents, anthraquinones, anthracyclines (also in liposomal form), eribulin, fluoropyrimidine, platinum complexes, taxanes, and vinorelbine. These substances can be combined with each another or with further substances for polychemotherapy. However, patients should only be treated with combinations that have previously been investigated in trials. EC
2.2.3  Metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.26. Systemic therapy after R0 resection of loco-regional recurrence must be considered to prolong the disease-free interval and overall survival. B 1a 262 ,  263
5.27. First-line therapy for metastasized HER2-positive breast cancer should consist of a dual blockade with trastuzumab/pertuzumab and a taxane. B 1b 262
5.28. Second-line therapy for metastasized HER2-positive breast cancer should consist of therapy with T-DM1. B 1b 262
2.2.4  Specific locations of metastases
2.2.4.1  Basic approach for distant metastasis
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.29. The decision whether distant metastases should be treated with surgery or local ablation should be made on an individual basis by an interdisciplinary tumor board. EC
2.2.4.2  Special treatment for skeletal metastases

For the diagnosis and therapy of skeletal metastasis, please refer to the S3 guideline on Supportive Therapy for Oncology Patients ( http://leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/Supportive-Therapie.95.0.html ).

2.2.4.2.1  Indications for radiotherapy

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.30. Indications for local percutaneous radiotherapy for bone metastasis are:
  • local pain,

  • limited mobility,

  • reduced stability (danger of fractures),

  • s/p surgical stabilization,

  • impending or existing neurological symptoms (e.g. compression of the spinal cord).

EC

2.2.4.2.2  Indications for surgical therapy

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.31. Indications for the surgical therapy of osseous manifestations may be:
  • myeloid compression with neurological symptoms,

  • pathological fracture,

  • impending fracture (risk of fracture, e.g. based on Mirelsʼ scoring system, the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Scale [SINS]),

  • solitary late metastasis,

  • osteolysis which does not respond to radiotherapy,

  • pain which does not respond to treatment.

EC

2.2.4.2.3  Osteoprotective therapy

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.32. Osteoprotective therapy with bisphosphonates/denosumab should be carried out to prevent complications from osseous manifestations. EC
2.2.4.3  Treatment for brain metastasis
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.26.
  • Single or solitary brain metastases should be resected if the patient has an otherwise favorable prognosis and the metastasis is in a location which permits its resection, and the risk of postoperative neurological deficits resulting from resection is low. Local fractionated radiotherapy or radiosurgery of the tumor bed should be subsequently carried out.

  • Radiosurgery represents an alternative to resection for patients with single metastases if the metastases are not larger than 3 cm and there is no midline shift with symptoms of intracranial compression.

  • Primary treatment of infratentorial metastasis consists of resection, which should be carried out to prevent imminent occlusive hydrocephalus.

  • If the patient only has a limited number of brain metastases (between 2 – 4) and their total volume can be treated with targeted radiation, initial radiosurgery is preferable to whole brain radiation therapy because of the lower negative impact on neurocognition, the shorter treatment time, and the better control rates. If surgery or radiosurgery cannot be carried out because of other negative prognostic criteria, the patient must receive whole brain radiation therapy alone. Whole brain radiation therapy alone must be used to treat patients with multiple brain metastases.

  • A combination of resection or radiosurgery with whole brain radiation therapy improves the brain-specific progression-free survival compared to surgery or radiosurgery alone but does not improve overall survival. However, this approach can be considered in individual cases.

  • It is not necessary to combine whole brain radiation therapy with radiosensitizing drugs.

1b/EC 264 ,  265 ,  266 ,  267 ,  268 ,  269 ,  270 ,  271 ,  272 ,  273
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.34. If cerebral metastasis is present, the patient should also receive systemic therapy (chemotherapy/endocrine therapy/anti-HER2 therapy) in addition to local therapy (surgery/radiotherapy). EC
2.2.4.4  Treatment for liver metastases
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.35. If the patient has liver metastases, resection or another form of local therapy (RFA, TACE, SBRT, SIRT) may be indicated in individual cases; the preconditions for this are:
  • no disseminated metastases

  • controlled extrahepatic metastasis

0 3b 274 ,  275 ,  276 ,  277 ,  278 ,  279 ,  280 ,  281 ,  282 ,  283 ,  284 ,  285
2.2.4.5  Treatment for lung metastases
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.36. Resection or another local therapy (RFA, stereotactic radiotherapy) may be indicated to treat individual patients with lung metastases; the preconditions for this are:
  • no disseminated metastases

  • controlled extrapulmonary metastasis

0 4 286 ,  287 ,  288 ,  289 ,  290

2.2.4.5.1  Malignant pleural effusion

No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.37. Patients with pleural carcinosis and symptomatic pleural effusions must be offered pleurodesis. A 1a 291
2.2.4.6  Skin and soft tissue metastasis
No. Recommendations/ Statements EG LoE Sources
5.34. Surgical excision or another form of local therapy (e.g. radiotherapy) can be considered to treat skin and soft tissue metastasis. EC

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest/Interessenkonflikt See/Siehe https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/mammakarzinom/

Guideline Program. Editors.

graphic file with name 10-1055-a-0646-4630-ilogo_gg_en.jpg

graphic file with name 10-1055-a-0646-4630-ilogo_oeggg_en.jpg

graphic file with name 10-1055-a-0646-4630-ilogo_gs_en.jpg

Leading Professional Medical Associations

German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. [DGGG])

Head Office of DGGG and Professional Societies

Hausvogteiplatz 12, DE-10117 Berlin

info@dggg.de

http://www.dggg.de/

President of DGGG

Prof. Dr. Anton Scharl

Direktor der Frauenkliniken

Klinikum St. Marien Amberg

Mariahilfbergweg 7, DE-92224 Amberg

Kliniken Nordoberpfalz AG

Söllnerstraße 16, DE-92637 Weiden

DGGG Guidelines Representatives

Prof. Dr. med. Matthias W. Beckmann

Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Frauenklinik

Universitätsstraße 21–23, DE-91054 Erlangen

Prof. Dr. med. Erich-Franz Solomayer

Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes

Geburtshilfe und Reproduktionsmedizin

Kirrberger Straße, Gebäude 9, DE-66421 Homburg

Guidelines Coordination

Dr. med. Paul Gaß, Christina Meixner

Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Frauenklinik

Universitätsstraße 21–23, DE-91054 Erlangen

fk-dggg-leitlinien@uk-erlangen.de

http://www.dggg.de/leitlinienstellungnahmen

Austrian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe [OEGGG])

Innrain 66A, AT-6020 Innsbruck

stephanie.leutgeb@oeggg.at

http://www.oeggg.at

President of OEGGG

Prof. Dr. med. Petra Kohlberger

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde Wien

Währinger Gürtel 18–20, AT-1180 Wien

OEGGG Guidelines Representatives

Prof. Dr. med. Karl Tamussino

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Graz

Auenbruggerplatz 14, AT-8036 Graz

Prof. Dr. med. Hanns Helmer

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde Wien

Währinger Gürtel 18–20, AT-1090 Wien

Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe [SGGG])

Gynécologie Suisse SGGG

Altenbergstraße 29, Postfach 6, CH-3000 Bern 8

sekretariat@sggg.ch

http://www.sggg.ch/

President of SGGG

Dr. med. David Ehm

FMH für Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie

Nägeligasse 13, CH-3011 Bern

SGGG Guidelines Representatives

Prof. Dr. med. Daniel Surbek

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde

Geburtshilfe und feto-maternale Medizin

Inselspital Bern

Effingerstraße 102, CH-3010 Bern

Prof. Dr. med. René Hornung

Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Frauenklinik

Rorschacher Straße 95, CH-9007 St. Gallen

References/Literatur

  • 1.Moran M S, Schnitt S J, Giuliano A E. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1507–1515. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.3935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Department of Health Diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with breast cancer. National Clinical Guideline No. 7. June 2015. ISSN 2009-6259Online:https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/5/cancer/profinfo/guidelines/breast/last access: May 2016
  • 3.Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich M L. The association of surgical margins and local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:717–730. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3480-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Early Breast Cancer Trialistsʼ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–1717. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fisher B, Anderson S, Tan-Chiu E. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for axillary node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-23. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:931–942. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.4.931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1227–1232. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1233–1241. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wald N J, Murphy P, Major P. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ. 1995;311:1189–1193. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7014.1189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Weaver D L, Krag D N, Ashikaga T. Pathologic analysis of sentinel and nonsentinel lymph nodes in breast carcinoma: a multicenter study. Cancer. 2000;88:1099–1107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McCahill L E, Single R M, Aiello Bowles E J. Variability in reexcision following breast conservation surgery. JAMA. 2012;307:467–475. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.New Zealand Guidelines Group (NZGG) Management of Early Breast Cancer – Evidence-based Best Practice Guideline. New Zealand Guidelines Group (2009)Online:https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/mgmt-of-early-breast-cancer-aug09.pdflast access: 01.09.2016
  • 12.Fisher B, Anderson S. Conservative surgery for the management of invasive and noninvasive carcinoma of the breast: NSABP trials. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project. World J Surg. 1994;18:63–69. doi: 10.1007/BF00348193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Voogd A C, Nielsen M, Peterse J L. Differences in risk factors for local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy for stage I and II breast cancer: pooled results of two large European randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1688–1697. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.6.1688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.De La Cruz L, Moody A M, Tappy E E. Overall Survival, Disease-Free Survival, Local Recurrence, and Nipple-Areolar Recurrence in the Setting of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3241–3249. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4739-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Endara M, Chen D, Verma K. Breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with pooled analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:1043–1054. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48b8a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lanitis S, Tekkis P P, Sgourakis G. Comparison of skin-sparing mastectomy versus non-skin-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Ann Surg. 2010;251:632–639. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d35bf8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Piper M, Peled A W, Foster R D. Total skin-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:435–437. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31827e5333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gentilini O, Botteri E, Rotmensz N. Conservative surgery in patients with multifocal/multicentric breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113:577–583. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-9959-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lynch S P, Lei X, Hsu L. Breast cancer multifocality and multicentricity and locoregional recurrence. Oncologist. 2013;18:1167–1173. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Neri A, Marrelli D, Megha T. Clinical significance of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers and choice of surgical treatment: a retrospective study on a series of 1158 cases. BMC Surg. 2015;15:1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-15-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Patani N, Carpenter R. Oncological and aesthetic considerations of conservational surgery for multifocal/multicentric breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16:222–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00917.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shaikh T, Tam T Y, Li T. Multifocal and multicentric breast cancer is associated with increased local recurrence regardless of surgery type. Breast J. 2015;21:121–126. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tan M P, Sitoh N Y, Sim A S. Breast conservation treatment for multifocal and multicentric breast cancers in women with small-volume breast tissue. doi:10.1111/ans.12942. ANZ J Surg. 2017;87:E5–E10. doi: 10.1111/ans.12942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wolters R, Wöckel A, Janni W. Comparing the outcome between multicentric and multifocal breast cancer: what is the impact on survival, and is there a role for guideline-adherent adjuvant therapy? A retrospective multicenter cohort study of 8,935 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142:579–590. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2772-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Yerushalmi R, Tyldesley S, Woods R. Is breast-conserving therapy a safe option for patients with tumor multicentricity and multifocality? Ann Oncol. 2012;23:876–881. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rhiem K, Engel C, Graeser M. The risk of contralateral breast cancer in patients from BRCA1/2 negative high risk families as compared to patients from BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive families: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14:R156. doi: 10.1186/bcr3369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fayanju O M, Stoll C R, Fowler S. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy after unilateral breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2014;260:1000–1010. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kurian A W, Lichtensztajn D Y, Keegan T H. Use of and mortality after bilateral mastectomy compared with other surgical treatments for breast cancer in California, 1998–2011. JAMA. 2014;312:902–914. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.10707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Potter S, Brigic A, Whiting P F. Reporting clinical outcomes of breast reconstruction: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:31–46. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. 2009 [addendum 2014]Online:https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg81/evidence/addendum-242246990 [PubMed]
  • 31.Lyman G H, Temin S, Edge S B. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1365–1383. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.1177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Krag D N, Anderson S J, Julian T B. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:927–933. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70207-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Houssami N, Ciatto S, Turner R M. Preoperative ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of axillary nodes in invasive breast cancer: meta-analysis of its accuracy and utility in staging the axilla. Ann Surg. 2011;254:243–251. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821f1564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Straver M E, Meijnen P, van Tienhoven G. Role of axillary clearance after a tumor-positive sentinel node in the administration of adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:731–737. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.7554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Giuliano A E, Hunt K K, Ballman K V. 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. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Galimberti V, Cole B F, Zurrida S. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:297–305. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70035-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Classe J M, Bordes V, Campion L. Sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer: results of Ganglion Sentinelle et Chimiotherapie Neoadjuvante, a French prospective multicentric study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:726–732. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Boughey J C, Suman V J, Mittendorf E A. 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. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.278932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T. 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. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70166-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366:2087–2106. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67887-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Early Breast Cancer Trialistsʼ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Darby S, McGale P, Correa C. Effect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:1707–1716. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61629-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pötter R, Gnant M, Kwasny W. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen or anastrozole with or without whole breast irradiation in women with favorable early breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68:334–340. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.12.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hughes K S, Schnaper L A, Bellon J R. Lumpectomy plus tamoxifen with or without irradiation in women age 70 years or older with early breast cancer: long-term follow-up of CALGB 9343. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2382–2387. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kunkler I H, Williams L J, Jack W J. Breast-conserving surgery with or without irradiation in women aged 65 years or older with early breast cancer (PRIME II): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:266–273. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71221-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Blamey R W, Bates T, Chetty U. Radiotherapy or tamoxifen after conserving surgery for breast cancers of excellent prognosis: British Association of Surgical Oncology (BASO) II trial. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:2294–2302. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.02.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Fyles A W, McCready D R, Manchul L A. Tamoxifen with or without breast irradiation in women 50 years of age or older with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:963–970. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa040595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kauer-Dorner D, Pötter R, Resch A. Partial breast irradiation for locally recurrent breast cancer within a second breast conserving treatment: alternative to mastectomy? Results from a prospective trial. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102:96–101. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2011.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Owen J R, Ashton A, Bliss J M. Effect of radiotherapy fraction size on tumour control in patients with early-stage breast cancer after local tumour excision: long-term results of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:467–471. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70699-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Haviland J S, Owen J R, Dewar J A. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) trials of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: 10-year follow-up results of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1086–1094. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70386-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Whelan T J, Pignol J P, Levine M N. Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:513–520. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0906260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Yarnold J, Ashton A, Bliss J. Fractionation sensitivity and dose response of late adverse effects in the breast after radiotherapy for early breast cancer: long-term results of a randomised trial. Radiother Oncol. 2005;75:9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2005.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.START Trialistsʼ Group . Bentzen SM, Agrawal RK, Aird EG. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:331–341. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70077-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.START Trialistsʼ Group . Bentzen S M, Agrawal R K, Aird E G. The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of radiotherapy hypofractionation for treatment of early breast cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1098–1107. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60348-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Shaitelman S F, Schlembach P J, Arzu I. Acute and Short-term Toxic Effects of Conventionally Fractionated vs. Hypofractionated Whole-Breast Irradiation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:931–941. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2666. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Antonini N, Jones H, Horiot J C. Effect of age and radiation dose on local control after breast conserving treatment: EORTC trial 22881-10882. Radiother Oncol. 2007;82:265–271. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2006.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P. Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:47–56. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71156-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Vrieling C, van Werkhoven E, Maingon P. Prognostic Factors for Local Control in Breast Cancer After Long-term Follow-up in the EORTC Boost vs. No Boost Trial: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:42–48. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Romestaing P, Lehingue Y, Carrie C. Role of a 10-Gy boost in the conservative treatment of early breast cancer: results of a randomized clinical trial in Lyon, France. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:963–968. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.3.963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Polgár C, Van Limbergen E, Pötter R. Patient selection for accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) after breast-conserving surgery: recommendations of the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie-European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) breast cancer working group based on clinical evidence (2009) Radiother Oncol. 2010;94:264–273. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2010.01.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Polgár C, Fodor J, Major T. Breast-conserving therapy with partial or whole breast irradiation: ten-year results of the Budapest randomized trial. Radiother Oncol. 2013;108:197–202. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.05.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Maisonneuve P. Intraoperative radiotherapy versus external radiotherapy for early breast cancer (ELIOT): a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1269–1277. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70497-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Vaidya J S, Wenz F, Bulsara M. Risk-adapted targeted intraoperative radiotherapy versus whole-breast radiotherapy for breast cancer: 5-year results for local control and overall survival from the TARGIT-A randomised trial. Lancet. 2014;383:603–613. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61950-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Strnad V, Ott O J, Hildebrandt G. 5-year results of accelerated partial breast irradiation using sole interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation with boost after breast-conserving surgery for low-risk invasive and in-situ carcinoma of the female breast: a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;387:229–238. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00471-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Polgár C, Ott O J, Hildebrandt G. Late side-effects and cosmetic results of accelerated partial breast irradiation with interstitial brachytherapy versus whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery for low-risk invasive and in-situ carcinoma of the female breast: 5-year results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:259–268. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30011-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.EBCTCG (Early Breast Cancer Trialistsʼ Collaborative Group) . McGale P, Taylor C, Correa C. Effect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trials. Lancet. 2014;383:2127–2135. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60488-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Gradishar W J, Anderson B O, Balassanian R. Invasive breast cancer version 1.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:324–354. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wang H, Kong L, Zhang C. Should all breast cancer patients with four or more positive lymph nodes who underwent modified radical mastectomy be treated with postoperative radiotherapy? A population-based study. Oncotarget. 2016;7:75492–75502. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.12260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Elmore L, Deshpande A, Daly M. Postmastectomy radiation therapy in T3 node-negative breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2015;199:90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Francis S R, Frandsen J, Kokeny K E. Outcomes and utilization of postmastectomy radiotherapy for T3N0 breast cancers. Breast. 2017;32:156–161. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Karlsson P, Cole B F, Chua B H. Patterns and risk factors for locoregional failures after mastectomy for breast cancer: an International Breast Cancer Study Group report. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2852–2858. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kyndi M, Overgaard M, Nielsen H M. High local recurrence risk is not associated with large survival reduction after postmastectomy radiotherapy in high-risk breast cancer: a subgroup analysis of DBCG 82 b & c. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90:74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.04.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Nagao T, Kinoshita T, Tamura N. Locoregional recurrence risk factors in breast cancer patients with positive axillary lymph nodes and the impact of postmastectomy radiotherapy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2013;18:54–61. doi: 10.1007/s10147-011-0343-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group . Nielsen HM, Overgaard M, Grau C. Study of failure pattern among high-risk breast cancer patients with or without postmastectomy radiotherapy in addition to adjuvant systemic therapy: long-term results from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82 b and c randomized studies. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2268–2275. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.8738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Recht A, Comen E A, Fine R E. Postmastectomy Radiotherapy: An American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology Focused Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:4431–4442. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.1188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Wang H, Zhang C, Kong L. Better survival in PMRT of female breast cancer patients with >5 negative lymph nodes: A population-based study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e5998. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Headon H, Kasem A, Almukbel R. Improvement of survival with postmastectomy radiotherapy in patients with 1–3 positive axillary lymph nodes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature. Mol Clin Oncol. 2016;5:429–436. doi: 10.3892/mco.2016.971. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Valli M C. Controversies in loco-regional treatment: post-mastectomy radiation for pT2-pT3N0 breast cancer arguments in favour. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2012;84 01:e70–e74. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2010.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Overgaard M, Hansen P S, Overgaard J. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 82b Trial. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:949–955. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199710023371401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Overgaard M, Jensen M B, Overgaard J. Postoperative radiotherapy in high-risk postmenopausal breast-cancer patients given adjuvant tamoxifen: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group DBCG 82c randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:1641–1648. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09201-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Rusthoven C G, Rabinovitch R A, Jones B L. The impact of postmastectomy and regional nodal radiation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for clinically lymph node-positive breast cancer: a National Cancer Database (NCDB) analysis. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:818–827. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Mamounas E P, Anderson S J, Dignam J J. Predictors of locoregional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from combined analysis of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3960–3966. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.8369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Kishan A U, McCloskey S A. Postmastectomy radiation therapy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: review and interpretation of available data. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2016;8:85–97. doi: 10.1177/1758834015617459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Kantor O, Pesce C, Singh P. Post-mastectomy radiation therapy and overall survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. doi:10.1002/jso.24551. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115:668–676. doi: 10.1002/jso.24551. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Poortmans P M, Collette S, Kirkove C. Internal mammary and medial supraclavicular irradiation in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:317–327. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Thorsen L B, Offersen B V, Danø H. DBCG-IMN: A Population-Based Cohort Study on the Effect of Internal Mammary Node Irradiation in Early Node-Positive Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:314–320. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.6456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Whelan T J, Olivotto I A, Parulekar W R. Regional nodal irradiation in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:307–316. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1415340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Hennequin C, Bossard N, Servagi-Vernat S. Ten-year survival results of a randomized trial of irradiation of internal mammary nodes after mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;86:860–866. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2013.03.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Budach W, Bölke E, Kammers K. Adjuvant radiation therapy of regional lymph nodes in breast cancer – a meta-analysis of randomized trials- an update. Radiat Oncol. 2015;10:258. doi: 10.1186/s13014-015-0568-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Recht A, Edge S B, Solin L J. Postmastectomy radiotherapy: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1539–1569. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.5.1539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Yates L, Kirby A, Crichton S. Risk factors for regional nodal relapse in breast cancer patients with one to three positive axillary nodes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:2093–2103. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.01.066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Caussa L, Kirova Y M, Gault N. The acute skin and heart toxicity of a concurrent association of trastuzumab and locoregional breast radiotherapy including internal mammary chain: a single-institution study. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Shaffer R, Tyldesley S, Rolles M. Acute cardiotoxicity with concurrent trastuzumab and radiotherapy including internal mammary chain nodes: a retrospective single-institution study. Radiother Oncol. 2009;90:122–126. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2008.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver M E. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC10981–22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1303–1310. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70460-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Gruber G, Cole B F, Castiglione-Gertsch M. Extracapsular tumor spread and the risk of local, axillary and supraclavicular recurrence in node-positive, premenopausal patients with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1393–1401. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Jagsi R, Chadha M, Moni J. Radiation field design in the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3600–3606. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.5838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Bartelink H, Rubens R D, van der Schueren E. Hormonal therapy prolongs survival in irradiated locally advanced breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:207–215. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.1.207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Scotti V, Desideri I, Meattini I. Management of inflammatory breast cancer: focus on radiotherapy with an evidence-based approach. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:119–124. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Bellon J R, Come S E, Gelman R S. Sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy in early-stage breast cancer: updated results of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1934–1940. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Hickey B E, Francis D, Lehman M H. Sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(04):CD005212. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005212.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Hickey B E, Francis D P, Lehman M. Sequencing of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(04):CD005212. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005212.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Pinnarò P, Rambone R, Giordano C. Long-term results of a randomized trial on the sequencing of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34:238–244. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e3181dea9b8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Chen Z, King W, Pearcey R. The relationship between waiting time for radiotherapy and clinical outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. Radiother Oncol. 2008;87:3–16. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2007.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Huang J, Barbera L, Brouwers M. Does delay in starting treatment affect the outcomes of radiotherapy? A systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:555–563. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Halyard M Y, Pisansky T M, Dueck A C. Radiotherapy and adjuvant trastuzumab in operable breast cancer: tolerability and adverse event data from the NCCTG Phase III Trial N9831. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2638–2644. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.9549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Li Y F, Chang L, Li W H. Radiotherapy concurrent versus sequential with endocrine therapy in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Breast. 2016;27:93–98. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Goldhirsch A, Wood W C, Coates A S. Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–1747. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialistsʼ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998;352:930–942. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Early Breast Cancer Trialistsʼ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:771–784. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60993-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1673–1682. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.22.1673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.The International Breast Cancer Study Group . Thürlimann B, Price KN, Castiglione M. Randomized controlled trial of ovarian function suppression plus tamoxifen versus the same endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy: Is chemotherapy necessary for premenopausal women with node-positive, endocrine-responsive breast cancer? First results of International Breast Cancer Study Group Trial 11-93. The Breast. 2001;10:130–138. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Burstein H J, Temin S, Anderson H. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2255–2269. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.2258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2013;381:805–816. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Gray R G, Rea D, Handley K.aTTom: Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years in 6,953 women with early breast cancer J Clin Oncol 201331185.doi:10.1200/jco.2013.31.18_suppl.523169505 [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Rea D W, Gray R G, Bowden S J. Overall and subgroup findings of the aTTom trial: A randomised comparison of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years compared to stopping after 5 years in 6953 women with ER positive or ER untested early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:S402. [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Eisen A, Fletcher G G, Gandhi S. Optimal Systemic Therapy for Early Female Breast Cancer. Toronto (ON): Cancer Care Ontario; 2014 Sep 30. Program in Evidence-Based Care Evidence-Based Series No.: 1–21
  • 116.Ferguson T, Wilcken N, Vagg R. Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(04):CD004421. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004421.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Sparano J A, Zhao F, Martino S. Long-Term Follow-Up of the E1199 Phase III Trial Evaluating the Role of Taxane and Schedule in Operable Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2353–2360. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.60.9271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Early Breast Cancer Trialistsʼ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Peto R, Davies C, Godwin J. Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials. Lancet. 2012;379:432–444. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61625-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group . EBM Reviews. Multi-agent chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(01):CD000487. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Budman D R, Berry D A, Cirrincione C T. Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1205–1211. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.16.1205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Fisher B, Anderson S, Wickerham D L. Increased intensification and total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-22. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1858–1869. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.5.1858. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.French Adjuvant Study Group . Benefit of a high-dose epirubicin regimen in adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients with poor prognostic factors: 5-year follow-up results of French Adjuvant Study Group 05 randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:602–611. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Fumoleau P, Kerbrat P, Romestaing P. Randomized trial comparing six versus three cycles of epirubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal, node-positive breast cancer patients: 10-year follow-up results of the French Adjuvant Study Group 01 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:298–305. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Swain S M, Jeong J H, Geyer C E., jr. Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2053–2065. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0909638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Bonadonna G, Zambetti M, Valagussa P. Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. Ten-year results. JAMA. 1995;273:542–547. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Citron M L, Berry D A, Cirrincione C. Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1431–1439. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Eiermann W, Pienkowski T, Crown J. Phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide with concomitant versus sequential docetaxel as adjuvant treatment in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, node-positive breast cancer: BCIRG-005 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3877–3884. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.5437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Francis P, Crown J, Di Leo A. Adjuvant chemotherapy with sequential or concurrent anthracycline and docetaxel: Breast International Group 02-98 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:121–133. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck H J. Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an AGO phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2874–2880. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.7643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Del Mastro L, De Placido S, Bruzzi P. Fluorouracil and dose-dense chemotherapy in adjuvant treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer: an open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1863–1872. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62048-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Bria E, Nistico C, Cuppone F. Benefit of taxanes as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: pooled analysis of 15,500 patients. Cancer. 2006;106:2337–2344. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Clavarezza M, Del Mastro L, Venturini M. Taxane-containing chemotherapy in the treatment of early breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;17 07:vii22–vii26. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdl944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Estévez L G, Muñoz M, Alvarez I. Evidence-based use of taxanes in the adjuvant setting of breast cancer. A review of randomized phase III trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2007;33:474–483. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2007.04.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Henderson I C, Berry D A, Demetri G D. Improved outcomes from adding sequential Paclitaxel but not from escalating Doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:976–983. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Mamounas E P, Bryant J, Lembersky B. Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3686–3696. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.10.517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Roché H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M. Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS01 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5664–5671. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3916. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Blum J L, Flynn P J, Yothers G. Anthracyclines in Early Breast Cancer: The ABC Trials-USOR 06-090, NSABP B-46-I/USOR 07132, and NSABP B-49 (NRG Oncology) J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2647–2655. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Ejlertsen B, Tuxen M K, Jakobsen E H. Adjuvant Cyclophosphamide and Docetaxel With or Without Epirubicin for Early TOP2A-Normal Breast Cancer: DBCG 07-READ, an Open-Label, Phase III, Randomized Trial. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.72.3494. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2639–2646. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.72.3494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Harbeck N, Gluz O, Clemens M R. Prospective WSG phase III PlanB trial: Final analysis of adjuvant 4xEC→4x doc vs. 6x docetaxel/cyclophosphamide in patients with high clinical risk and intermediate-to-high genomic risk HER2-negative, early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35 15:504. [Google Scholar]
  • 140.von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Nüesch E. Impact of treatment characteristics on response of different breast cancer phenotypes: pooled analysis of the German neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125:145–156. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1228-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–172. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi G N, Goldhirsch A. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1940–1949. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.6187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Bear H D, Anderson S, Smith R E. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2019–2027. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.1665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.von Minckwitz G, Blohmer J U, Raab G. In vivo chemosensitivity-adapted preoperative chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer: the GEPARTRIO pilot study. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:56–63. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdi001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Petrelli F, Barni S. Meta-analysis of concomitant compared to sequential adjuvant trastuzumab in breast cancer: the sooner the better. Med Oncol. 2012;29:503–510. doi: 10.1007/s12032-011-9897-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Pfeilschifter J, Diel I J. Osteoporosis due to cancer treatment: pathogenesis and management. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1570–1593. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.7.1570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W. Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:679–691. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Stoeger H. Adjuvant endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: 62-month follow-up from the ABCSG-12 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:631–641. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70122-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Hadji P, Kauka A, Ziller M. Effects of zoledronic acid on bone mineral density in premenopausal women receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies for HR+ breast cancer: the ProBONE II study. Osteoporos Int. 2014;25:1369–1378. doi: 10.1007/s00198-013-2615-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Gnant M, Pfeiler G, Dubsky P C. Adjuvant denosumab in breast cancer (ABCSG-18): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;386:433–443. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60995-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Kalder M, Hans D, Kyvernitakis I. Effects of Exemestane and Tamoxifen treatment on bone texture analysis assessed by TBS in comparison with bone mineral density assessed by DXA in women with breast cancer. J Clin Densitom. 2014;17:66–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jocd.2013.03.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Hadji P, Asmar L, van Nes J G. The effect of exemestane and tamoxifen on bone health within the Tamoxifen Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial: a meta-analysis of the US, German, Netherlands, and Belgium sub-studies. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2011;137:1015–1025. doi: 10.1007/s00432-010-0964-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Rabaglio M, Sun Z, Price K N. Bone fractures among postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer treated with 5 years of letrozole or tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 trial. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1489–1498. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Greep N C, Giuliano A E, Hansen N M. The effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on bone density in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Am J Med. 2003;114:653–659. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(03)00127-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Hadji P, Ziller M, Maskow C. The influence of chemotherapy on bone mineral density, quantitative ultrasonometry and bone turnover in pre-menopausal women with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:3205–3212. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2009.09.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Kanis J A, Oden A, Johnell O. The use of clinical risk factors enhances the performance of BMD in the prediction of hip and osteoporotic fractures in men and women. Osteoporos Int. 2007;18:1033–1046. doi: 10.1007/s00198-007-0343-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Frost S A, Nguyen N D, Center J R. Timing of repeat BMD measurements: development of an absolute risk-based prognostic model. J Bone Miner Res. 2009;24:1800–1807. doi: 10.1359/jbmr.090514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Coleman R, Cameron D, Dodwell D. Adjuvant zoledronic acid in patients with early breast cancer: final efficacy analysis of the AZURE (BIG 01/04) randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:997–1006. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70302-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Col N F, Hirota L K, Orr R K. Hormone replacement therapy after breast cancer: a systematic review and quantitative assessment of risk. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2357–2363. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.8.2357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Pantel K, Alix-Panabieres C, Riethdorf S. Cancer micrometastases. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6:339–351. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Wilson C, Holen I, Coleman R E. Seed, soil and secreted hormones: potential interactions of breast cancer cells with their endocrine/paracrine microenvironment and implications for treatment with bisphosphonates. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38:877–889. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.02.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Domschke C, Diel I J, Englert S. Prognostic value of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of patients with operable primary breast cancer: a long-term follow-up study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:1865–1871. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2814-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Banys M, Solomayer E F, Gebauer G. Influence of zoledronic acid on disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow and survival: results of a prospective clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:480. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Ben-Aharon I, Vidal L, Rizel S. Bisphosphonates in the adjuvant setting of breast cancer therapy – effect on survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e70044. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Early Breast Cancer Trialistsʼ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) . Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in early breast cancer: meta-analyses of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2015;386:1353–1361. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60908-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Coleman R, Body J J, Aapro M. Bone health in cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2014;25 03:iii124–iii137. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) . http:// http://
  • 168.Grunfeld E, Dhesy-Thind S, Levine M. Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: follow-up after treatment for breast cancer (summary of the 2005 update) CMAJ. 2005;172:1319–1320. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.045062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169.Hauner D, Janni W, Rack B. The effect of overweight and nutrition on prognosis in breast cancer. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:795–801. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Voskuil D W, van Nes J G, Junggeburt J M. Maintenance of physical activity and body weight in relation to subsequent quality of life in postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:2094–2101. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Rock C L, Doyle C, Demark-Wahnefried W. Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:243–274. doi: 10.3322/caac.21142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Cheema B S, Kilbreath S L, Fahey P P. Safety and efficacy of progressive resistance training in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148:249–268. doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-3162-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Courneya K S, McKenzie D C, Mackey J R. Subgroup effects in a randomised trial of different types and doses of exercise during breast cancer chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:1718–1725. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Irwin M L, Cartmel B, Gross C P. Randomized exercise trial of aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia in breast cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1104–1111. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.1547. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Steindorf K, Schmidt M E, Klassen O. Randomized, controlled trial of resistance training in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy: results on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:2237–2243. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Furmaniak A C, Menig M, Markes M H. Exercise for women receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(09):CD005001. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005001.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Meneses-Echavez J F, Gonzalez-Jimenez E, Ramirez-Velez R. Effects of supervised exercise on cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:77. doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1069-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Bower J E, Bak K, Berger A. Screening, assessment, and management of fatigue in adult survivors of cancer: an American Society of Clinical oncology clinical practice guideline adaptation. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1840–1850. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.4495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Carayol M, Bernard P, Boiché J. Psychological effect of exercise in women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant therapy: what is the optimal dose needed? Ann Oncol. 2013;24:291–300. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Mishra S I, Scherer R W, Geigle P M. Exercise interventions on health-related quality of life for cancer survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(08):CD007566. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007566.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Streckmann F, Kneis S, Leifert J A. Exercise program improves therapy-related side-effects and quality of life in lymphoma patients undergoing therapy. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:493–499. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt568. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Keilani M, Hasenoehrl T, Neubauer M. Resistance exercise and secondary lymphedema in breast cancer survivors – a systematic review. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24:1907–1916. doi: 10.1007/s00520-015-3068-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Nelson N L. Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema and Resistance Exercise: A Systematic Review. J Strength Cond Res. 2016;30:2656–2665. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Bok S K, Jeon Y, Hwang P S. Ultrasonographic Evaluation of the Effects of Progressive Resistive Exercise in Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol. 2016;14:18–24. doi: 10.1089/lrb.2015.0021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Letellier M E, Towers A, Shimony A.Breast cancer-related lymphedema: a randomized controlled pilot and feasibility study Am J Phys Med Rehabil 201493751–759.quiz 760–761 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.Cormie P, Galvão D A, Spry N. Neither heavy nor light load resistance exercise acutely exacerbates lymphedema in breast cancer survivor. Integr Cancer Ther. 2013;12:423–432. doi: 10.1177/1534735413477194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187.Cormie P, Pumpa K, Galvão D A. Is it safe and efficacious for women with lymphedema secondary to breast cancer to lift heavy weights during exercise: a randomised controlled trial. J Cancer Surviv. 2013;7:413–424. doi: 10.1007/s11764-013-0284-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Runowicz C D, Leach C R, Henry N L. American Cancer society/American society of clinical oncology breast Cancer survivorship care guideline. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:43–73. doi: 10.3322/caac.21319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Nechuta S, Chen W Y, Cai H. A pooled analysis of post-diagnosis lifestyle factors in association with late estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer prognosis. Int J Cancer. 2016;138:2088–2097. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Azim H A, jr., Kroman N, Paesmans M. Prognostic impact of pregnancy after breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status: a multicenter retrospective study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:73–79. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.2285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Azim H A, jr., Santoro L, Pavlidis N. Safety of pregnancy following breast cancer diagnosis: a meta-analysis of 14 studies. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:74–83. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 192.Goldrat O, Kroman N, Peccatori F A. Pregnancy following breast cancer using assisted reproduction and its effect on long-term outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1490–1496. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193.Lambertini M, Del Mastro L, Pescio M C. Cancer and fertility preservation: international recommendations from an expert meeting. BMC Med. 2016;14:1. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0545-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194.Gennari A, Costa M, Puntoni M. Breast cancer incidence after hormonal treatments for infertility: systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;150:405–413. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3328-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 195.Luke B, Brown M B, Missmer S A. Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes among women with a history of cancer. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:183–189. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196.Loibl S, Han S N, von Minckwitz G. Treatment of breast cancer during pregnancy: an observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:887–896. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70261-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 197.Loibl S, Schmidt A, Gentilini O. Breast Cancer Diagnosed During Pregnancy: Adapting Recent Advances in Breast Cancer Care for Pregnant Patients. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:1145–1153. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 198.National Toxicology Program . NTP Monograph: Developmental Effects and Pregnancy Outcomes Associated With Cancer Chemotherapy Use During Pregnancy. NTP Monogr. 2013;(02):i–214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Zagouri F, Sergentanis T N, Chrysikos D. Trastuzumab administration during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137:349–357. doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-2368-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Del Mastro L, Rossi G, Lambertini M. New insights on the role of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonists in premenopausal early breast cancer patients. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;42:18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Vitek W S, Shayne M, Hoeger K. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for the preservation of ovarian function among women with breast cancer who did not use tamoxifen after chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2014;102:808–8150. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Moore H C, Unger J M, Phillips K A. Goserelin for ovarian protection during breast-cancer adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:923–932. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.Del Mastro L, Boni L, Michelotti A. Effect of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin on the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced early menopause in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306:269–276. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 204.Lambertini M, Boni L, Michelotti A. Ovarian Suppression With Triptorelin During Adjuvant Breast Cancer Chemotherapy and Long-term Ovarian Function, Pregnancies, and Disease-Free Survival: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;314:2632–2640. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.17291. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 205.Gerber B, von Minckwitz G, Stehle H. Effect of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist on ovarian function after modern adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy: the GBG 37 ZORO study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2334–2341. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.5704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 206.Munster P N, Moore A P, Ismail-Khan R. Randomized trial using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triptorelin for the preservation of ovarian function during (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:533–538. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.34.6890. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 207.Kalsi T, Babic-Illman G, Ross P J. The impact of comprehensive geriatric assessment interventions on tolerance to chemotherapy in older people. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1435–1444. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 208.Hall D E, Arya S, Schmid K K. Association of a Frailty Screening Initiative With Postoperative Survival at 30, 180, and 365 Days. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:233–240. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 209.Le Saux O, Ripamonti B, Bruyas A. Optimal management of breast cancer in the elderly patient: current perspectives. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:157–174. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S50670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 210.Decoster L, Van Puyvelde K, Mohile S. Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations†. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:288–300. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 211.Clough-Gorr K M, Stuck A E, Thwin S S. Older breast cancer survivors: geriatric assessment domains are associated with poor tolerance of treatment adverse effects and predict mortality over 7 years of follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:380–386. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.5440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 212.Mislang A R, Biganzoli L. Adjuvant Systemic Therapy in Older Breast Cancer Women: Can We Optimize the Level of Care? Cancers (Basel) 2015;7:1191–1214. doi: 10.3390/cancers7030833. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 213.Biganzoli L, Wildiers H, Oakman C. Management of elderly patients with breast cancer: updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:e148–e160. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70383-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 214.Thavarajah N, Menjak I, Trudeau M. Towards an optimal multidisciplinary approach to breast cancer treatment for older women. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2015;25:384–408. doi: 10.5737/23688076254384395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 215.Morgan J, Wyld L, Collins K A.Surgery versus primary endocrine therapy for operable primary breast cancer in elderly women (70 years plus) Cochrane Database Syst Rev 201405CD004272 10.1002/14651858.CD004272.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 216.Christiansen P, Bjerre K, Ejlertsen B. Mortality rates among early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer patients: a population-based cohort study in Denmark. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1363–1372. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 217.Lange M, Heutte N, Rigal O. Decline in Cognitive Function in Older Adults With Early-Stage Breast Cancer After Adjuvant Treatment. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0014. Oncologist. 2016;21:1337–1348. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 218.Ono M, Ogilvie J M, Wilson J S. A meta-analysis of cognitive impairment and decline associated with adjuvant chemotherapy in women with breast cancer. Front Oncol. 2015;5:59. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 219.Jones S, Holmes F A, OʼShaughnessy J. Docetaxel With Cyclophosphamide Is Associated With an Overall Survival Benefit Compared With Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide: 7-Year Follow-Up of US Oncology Research Trial 9735. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1177–1183. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.4028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 220.Perrone F, Nuzzo F, Di Rella F. Weekly docetaxel versus CMF as adjuvant chemotherapy for older women with early breast cancer: final results of the randomized phase III ELDA trial. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:675–682. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 221.Biganzoli L, Aapro M, Loibl S. Taxanes in the treatment of breast cancer: Have we better defined their role in older patients? A position paper from a SIOG Task Force. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;43:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.11.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 222.Muss H B, Berry D A, Cirrincione C T. Adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2055–2065. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 223.Freyer G, Campone M, Peron J. Adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide in breast cancer patients over the age of 70: results of an observational study. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;80:466–473. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2011.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 224.Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Harbeck N. Clinical feasibility of (neo)adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in older patients: analysis of > 4,500 patients from four German randomized breast cancer trials. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10:R77. doi: 10.1186/bcr2144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 225.Swain S M, Whaley F S, Ewer M S. Congestive heart failure in patients treated with doxorubicin: a retrospective analysis of three trials. Cancer. 2003;97:2869–2879. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 226.Freedman R A, Seisler D K, Foster J C. Risk of acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome among older women receiving anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer on Modern Cooperative Group Trials (Alliance A151511) Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161:363–373. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-4051-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 227.Pinder M C, Duan Z, Goodwin J S. Congestive heart failure in older women treated with adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3808–3815. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.4976. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 228.Dall P, Lenzen G, Göhler T. Trastuzumab in the treatment of elderly patients with early breast cancer: Results from an observational study in Germany. J Geriatr Oncol. 2015;6:462–469. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2015.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 229.Brollo J, Curigliano G, Disalvatore D. Adjuvant trastuzumab in elderly with HER-2 positive breast cancer: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:44–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 230.Jones S E, Savin M A, Holmes F A. Phase III trial comparing doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide with docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5381–5387. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 231.Dang C, Guo H, Najita J. Cardiac Outcomes of Patients Receiving Adjuvant Weekly Paclitaxel and Trastuzumab for Node-Negative, ERBB2-Positive Breast Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:29–36. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 232.Tolaney S M, Barry W T, Dang C T. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:134–141. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1406281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 233.Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1748–1757. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.1882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 234.Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM, Bonn) Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (PEI, Langen) BfArM Bulletin zur Arzneimittelsicherheit. 2010Online:https://www.bfarm.de/DE/Arzneimittel/Pharmakovigilanz/Bulletin/_node.html
  • 235.Deutsch M. Repeat high-dose external beam irradiation for in-breast tumor recurrence after previous lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002;53:687–691. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(02)02785-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 236.Haffty B G, Reiss M, Beinfield M. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence as a predictor of distant disease: implications for systemic therapy at the time of local relapse. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:52–57. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 237.Kurtz J M, Jacquemier J, Amalric R. Is breast conservation after local recurrence feasible? Eur J Cancer. 1991;27:240–244. doi: 10.1016/0277-5379(91)90505-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 238.Whelan T, Clark R, Roberts R. Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence postlumpectomy is predictive of subsequent mortality: results from a randomized trial. Investigators of the Ontario Clinical Oncology Group. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;30:11–16. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(94)90513-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 239.Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Torri V. Cytotoxic and hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of published randomized trials involving 31,510 women. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:3439–3460. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.10.3439. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 240.Stockler M, Wilcken N, Ghersi D, Simes R J. Woolloomooloo: NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre; 1997. The management of advanced breast cancer: systemic reviews of randomised controlled trials regarding the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. [Google Scholar]
  • 241.Stockler M, Wilcken N R, Ghersi D. Systematic reviews of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2000;26:151–168. doi: 10.1053/ctrv.1999.0161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 242.Rugo H S, Rumble R B, Macrae E. Endocrine Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3069–3103. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.1487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 243.Partridge A H, Rumble R B, Carey L A. Chemotherapy and targeted therapy for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (or unknown) advanced breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3307–3329. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 244.Sledge G W, jr., Hu P, Falkson G. Comparison of chemotherapy with chemohormonal therapy as first-line therapy for metastatic, hormone-sensitive breast cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:262–266. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.2.262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 245.Klijn J G, Blamey R W, Boccardo F. Combined tamoxifen and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist versus LHRH agonist alone in premenopausal advanced breast cancer: a meta-analysis of four randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:343–353. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.2.343. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 246.National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre Recommendations for follow-up of women with early breast cancer SurryHills, NSW: National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre; 2010. Online:https://guidelines.canceraustralia.gov.au/guidelines/early_breast_cancer/ [Google Scholar]
  • 247.Taylor C W, Green S, Dalton W S. Multicenter randomized clinical trial of goserelin versus surgical ovariectomy in premenopausal patients with receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup study. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:994–999. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1998.16.3.994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 248.Loibl S, Turner N C, Ro J.Palbociclib (PAL) in combination with fulvestrant (F) in pre-/peri-menopausal (PreM) women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and prior progression on endocrine therapy – results from Paloma-3 J Clin Oncol 201634(Suppl.)Abstr.. 524 [Google Scholar]
  • 249.Ellis M, Hayes D, Lippman M. Treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2000;2000:749–797. [Google Scholar]
  • 250.Hayes D F, Henderson I C, Shapiro C L.Treatment of metastatic breast cancer: present and future prospects Semin Oncol 199522 (2 Suppl. 5)5–19.discussion 19–21 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 251.Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y. Superior efficacy of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: results of a phase III study of the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:2596–2606. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.10.2596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 252.Mouridsen H, Sun Y, Gershanovich M. First-line therapy with letrozole (femara ® ) for advanced breast cancer prolongs time to worsening of Karnofsky Performance Status compared with tamoxifen . doi:10.1023/A:1017475415273 Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;69:185. [Google Scholar]
  • 253.Dear R F, McGeechan K, Jenkins M C. Combination versus sequential single agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(12):CD008792. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008792.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 254.Sledge G W, Neuberg D, Bernardo P. Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: an intergroup trial (E1193) J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:588–592. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 255.Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2666–2676. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa072113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 256.Gray R, Bhattacharya S, Bowden C. Independent review of E2100: a phase III trial of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4966–4972. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 257.Robert N J, Diéras V, Glaspy J. RIBBON-1: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1252–1260. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 258.Welt A, Marschner N, Lerchenmueller C. Capecitabine and bevacizumab with or without vinorelbine in first-line treatment of HER2/neu-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: final efficacy and safety data of the randomised, open-label superiority phase 3 CARIN trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156:97–107. doi: 10.1007/s10549-016-3727-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 259.Lang I, Brodowicz T, Ryvo L. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: interim efficacy results of the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 TURANDOT trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:125–133. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70566-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 260.Zielinski C, Láng I, Inbar M. Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1230–1239. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30154-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 261.Carrick S, Parker S, Wilcken N. Single agent versus combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(02):CD003372. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003372.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 262.Giordano S H, Temin S, Kirshner J J. Systemic therapy for patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:2078–2099. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 263.Balduzzi S, Mantarro S, Guarneri V. Trastuzumab-containing regimens for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(06):CD006242. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006242.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 264.Kalkanis S N, Kondziolka D, Gaspar L E. The role of surgical resection in the management of newly diagnosed brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol. 2010;96:33–43. doi: 10.1007/s11060-009-0061-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 265.Patchell R A, Tibbs P A, Walsh J W. A randomized trial of surgery in the treatment of single metastases to the brain. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:494–500. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199002223220802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 266.Vecht C J, Haaxma-Reiche H, Noordijk E M. Treatment of single brain metastasis: radiotherapy alone or combined with neurosurgery? Ann Neurol. 1993;33:583–590. doi: 10.1002/ana.410330605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 267.Patchell R A, Tibbs P A, Regine W F. Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:1485–1489. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.17.1485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 268.Kondziolka D, Patel A, Lunsford L D. Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole brain radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with multiple brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:427–434. doi: 10.1016/s0360-3016(99)00198-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 269.Andrews D W, Scott C B, Sperduto P W. Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1665–1672. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16250-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 270.Aoyama H, Shirato H, Tago M. Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs. stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2483–2491. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.21.2483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 271.Chang E L, Wefel J S, Hess K R. Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:1037–1044. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70263-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 272.Kocher M, Soffietti R, Abacioglu U. Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:134–141. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.1655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 273.Brown P D, Jaeckle K, Ballman K V. Effect of Radiosurgery Alone vs. Radiosurgery With Whole Brain Radiation Therapy on Cognitive Function in Patients With 1 to 3 Brain Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016;316:401–409. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.9839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 274.Li X P, Meng Z Q, Guo W J. Treatment for liver metastases from breast cancer: results and prognostic factors. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:3782–3787. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i24.3782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 275.Mariani P, Servois V, De Rycke Y. Liver metastases from breast cancer: Surgical resection or not? A case-matched control study in highly selected patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:1377–1383. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2013.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 276.Taşçi Y, Aksoy E, Taşkın H E. A comparison of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation versus systemic therapy alone in the treatment of breast cancer metastasis to the liver. HPB (Oxford) 2013;15:789–793. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 277.Fairhurst K, Leopardi L, Satyadas T. The safety and effectiveness of liver resection for breast cancer liver metastases: A systematic review. Breast. 2016;30:175–184. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 278.Sadot E, Lee S Y, Sofocleous C T. Hepatic Resection or Ablation for Isolated Breast Cancer Liver Metastasis: A Case-control Study With Comparison to Medically Treated Patients. Ann Surg. 2016;264:147–154. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 279.Ruiz A, Wicherts D A, Sebagh M. Predictive Profile-Nomogram for Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Metastases: An Aggressive Approach with Promising Results. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:535–545. doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5522-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 280.Ruiz A, Castro-Benitez C, Sebagh M. Repeat Hepatectomy for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22 03:S1057–S1066. doi: 10.1245/s10434-015-4785-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 281.Zhou J H, Rosen D, Andreou A. Residual tumor thickness at the tumor-normal tissue interface predicts the recurrence-free survival in patients with liver metastasis of breast cancer. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2014;18:266–270. doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2014.07.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 282.Polistina F, Costantin G, Febbraro A. Aggressive treatment for hepatic metastases from breast cancer: results from a single center. World J Surg. 2013;37:1322–1332. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-1986-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 283.van Walsum G A, de Ridder J A, Verhoef C. Resection of liver metastases in patients with breast cancer: survival and prognostic factors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:910–917. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2012.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 284.Abbott D E, Brouquet A, Mittendorf E A. Resection of liver metastases from breast cancer: estrogen receptor status and response to chemotherapy before metastasectomy define outcome. Surgery. 2012;151:710–716. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.12.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 285.Spolverato G, Vitale A, Bagante F. Liver Resection for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A Cost-utility Analysis. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001715. Ann Surg. 2017;265:792–799. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 286.Fan J, Chen D, Du H. Prognostic factors for resection of isolated pulmonary metastases in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:1441–1451. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.08.10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 287.Meimarakis G, Rüttinger D, Stemmler J. Prolonged overall survival after pulmonary metastasectomy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:1170–1180. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.11.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 288.Kycler W, Laski P. Surgical approach to pulmonary metastases from breast cancer. Breast J. 2012;18:52–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01176.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 289.García-Yuste M, Cassivi S, Paleru C. Pulmonary metastasectomy in breast cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:S170–S171. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181dcf933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 290.Yhim H Y, Han S W, Oh D Y. Prognostic factors for recurrent breast cancer patients with an isolated, limited number of lung metastases and implications for pulmonary metastasectomy. Cancer. 2010;116:2890–2901. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 291.Clive A O, Jones H E, Bhatnagar R. Interventions for the management of malignant pleural effusions: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(05):CD010529. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010529.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018 Nov 26;78(11):1056–1088.

Interdisziplinäre Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Leitlinie der DGGG und DKG (S3-Level, AWMF-Registernummer 032/045OL, Dezember 2017) – Teil 2 mit Empfehlungen zur Therapie des primären, rezidivierten und fortgeschrittenen Mammakarzinoms

Zusammenfassung

Ziele Das Ziel dieser offiziellen Leitlinie, die von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) und der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft (DKG) publiziert und koordiniert wurde, ist es, die Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms zu optimieren.

Methode Der Aktualisierungsprozess der S3-Leitlinie aus 2012 basierte zum einen auf der Adaptation identifizierter Quellleitlinien und zum anderen auf Evidenzübersichten, die nach Entwicklung von PICO-Fragen (PICO: Patients/Interventions/Control/Outcome), systematischer Recherche in Literaturdatenbanken sowie Selektion und Bewertung der gefundenen Literatur angefertigt wurden. In den interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppen wurden auf dieser Grundlage Vorschläge für Empfehlungen – und Statements erarbeitet, die im Rahmen von strukturierten Konsensusverfahren modifiziert und graduiert wurden.

Empfehlungen Teil 2 dieser Kurzversion der Leitlinie zeigt Empfehlungen zur Therapie des primären, rezidivierten und metastasierten Mammakarzinoms: Die lokoregionären Therapien erfahren in der aktuellen Leitlinie eine Deeskalation. Neben einer Verringerung des Sicherheitsabstandes bei den operativen Verfahren gibt die Leitlinie auch Empfehlungen zu einer reduzierten Radikalität bei axillären Interventionen. Die Systemtherapie richtet sich nach den tumorbiologischen Eigenschaften, neue Substanzen stehen insbesondere beim metastatierten Mammakarzinom zur Verfügung.

I  Leitlinieninformationen

Leitlinienprogramm der DGGG, OEGGG und SGGG

Informationen dazu am Ende des Artikels.

Zitationsformat

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. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2018; 78: 1056–1088

Leitliniendokumente

Die vollständige Langversion mit einer Aufstellung der Interessenkonflikte aller Autoren und eine Kurzversion können auf der Homepage der AWMF eingesehen werden: http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/032-045OL.html oder www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de

Leitliniengruppe

Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e. V. ist mit der deutschen Krebsgesellschaft (DKG) federführende Fachgesellschaft dieser LL. Die hier vorgestellte Aktualisierung der Leitlinie wurde im Rahmen des Leitlinienprogramms Onkologie (OL-Programms) durch die Deutsche Krebshilfe gefördert. Die Mitglieder der Leitlinien-Steuergruppe ( Tab. 1 ), die von den teilnehmenden Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen ( Tab. 2 ) benannten sowie die von der Steuergruppe eingeladenen Experten ( Tab. 3 ) stellten die Mitglieder der Arbeitsgruppen und sind die Autoren der LL. Stimmberechtigt in den Abstimmungsprozessen (Konsensusverfahren) waren kapitelweise nur die von den teilnehmenden Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen benannten Mandatsträger nach Offenlegung und Ausschluss von Interessenkonflikten. Die Leitlinie wurde unter direkter Beteiligung von 4 Patientenvertreterinnen erstellt.

Tab. 1  Steuergruppe.

Name Stadt
1 Prof. Dr. Ute-Susann Albert Marburg
2 Prof. Dr. Wilfried Budach Düsseldorf
3 Dr. Markus Follmann, MPH, M. Sc. Berlin
4 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Janni Ulm
5 Prof. Dr. Ina Kopp Marburg
6 Prof. Dr. Rolf Kreienberg Landshut
7 PD Dr. Mathias Krockenberger Würzburg
8 Prof. Dr. Thorsten Kühn Esslingen
9 Dipl.-Soz. Wiss. Thomas Langer Berlin
10 Dr. Monika Nothacker Marburg
11 Prof. Dr. Anton Scharl Amberg
12 Prof. Dr. Ingrid Schreer Hamburg-Eimsbüttel
13 Prof. Dr. Achim Wöckel (Leitlinienkoordination) Würzburg
methodische Beratung: Prof. Dr. P. U. Heuschmann, Universität Würzburg

Tab. 2  Beteiligte Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen.

Fachgesellschaften 1. Mandatsträger 2. Mandatsträger (Vertreter)
AG Radiologische Onkologie (ARO) Prof. Dr. Wilfried Budach , Düsseldorf Prof. Dr. Frederik Wenz , Mannheim
AG Supportive Maßnahmen in der Onkologie, Rehabilitation und Sozialmedizin (ASORS) Prof. Dr. Hartmut Link , Kaiserslautern Prof. Dr. Oliver Rick , Bad Wildungen
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tumorzentren e. V. (ADT) Prof. Dr. Jutta Engel , München Prof. Dr. Dieter Hölzel , München
Arbeitsgemeinschaft für gynäkologische Onkologie (AGO) Prof. Dr. Tanja Fehm , Düsseldorf Prof. Dr. Anton Scharl , Amberg
AG Prävention und Integrative Onkologie (PRiO) Prof. Dr. Volker Hanf , Fürth Prof. Dr. Karsten Münstedt , Offenburg
Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Psychoonkologie in der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e. V. (PSO) Prof. Dr. Joachim Weis , Freiburg
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO) Dr. Anja Welt , Essen Dr. Matthias Zaiss , Freiburg
Arbeitskreis Frauengesundheit (AKF) Prof. Dr. Anke Steckelberg , Halle Gudrun Kemper , Berlin
Berufsverband Deutscher Strahlentherapeuten e. V. (BVDST) Prof. Dr. Petra Feyer , Berlin Prof. Dr. Volker Budach , Berlin
Berufsverband für Frauenärzte e. V. Dr. Klaus König , Steinbach
BRCA-Netzwerk e. V. Andrea Hahne , Bonn Traudl Baumgartner , Bonn
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pathologie Prof. Dr. Hans H. Kreipe , Hannover Prof. Dr. Carsten Denkert , Berlin
Chirurgische AG für Onkologie (CAO-V) Prof. Dr. Wolfram Trudo Knoefel , Düsseldorf
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geriatrie (DGG) Prof. Dr. Michael Denkinger , Ulm
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (DGGG) Prof. Dr. Sara Brucker , Tübingen Prof. Dr. Bernd Gerber , Rostock
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hämatologie und Onkologie (DGHO) Prof. Dr. Diana Lüftner , Berlin Prof. Dr. Hans Tesch , Frankfurt
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nuklearmedizin (DGN) Prof. Dr. Andreas Buck
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Humangenetik e. V. (GfH) Prof. Dr. Christian Kubisch , Hamburg
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin (DGP) Dr. Christina Gerlach , M. Sc., Mainz Dr. Susanne Hirsmüller , M. Sc., Düsseldorf
Bundesverband Deutscher Pathologen e. V. Prof. Dr. Annette Lebeau , Hamburg Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Sinn , Heidelberg
Deutsche Gesellschaft für psychosomatische Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe (DGPFG) PD Dr. Friederike Siedentopf , Berlin
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Radioonkologie (DEGRO) Prof. Dr. Cordula Petersen , Hamburg Prof. Dr. Jürgen Dunst , Kiel
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rehabilitationswissenschaften (DGRW) Prof. Dr. Hans Helge Bartsch , Freiburg
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie (DGS) Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland , Erlangen
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin e. V. (DEGUM) Prof. Dr. Markus Hahn , Tübingen
Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft e. V. Prof. Dr. Markus Müller-Schimpfle , Frankfurt bis 31.12.16: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Bick , Berlin
ab 01.01.17: PD Dr. E. Fallenberg , Berlin
Deutscher Verband für Physiotherapie e. V. (ZVK) Ulla Henscher , Hannover Reina Tholen , Köln
Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs Dr. Renza Roncarati , Bonn Roswita Hung , Wolfsburg
Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V. (GEKID) Prof. Dr. Alexander Katalinic , Lübeck
Gesellschaft der Plastischen, Rekonstruktiven und Ästhetischen Chirurgie (DGPRÄC) Prof. Dr. Christoph Heitmann , München
Gynécologie Suisse (SGGG) Dr. Christoph Honegger , Baar
Konferenz Onkologischer Kranken- und Kinderkrankenpflege (KOK) Kerstin Paradies , Hamburg
Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (OEGGG) Prof. Dr. Vesna Bjelic-Radisic , Graz
Ultraschalldiagnostik in Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (ARGUS) Prof. Dr. med. Dr. h. c. Friedrich Degenhardt , Hannover

Tab. 3  Experten in beratender Funktion und weitere Mitarbeiter.

Name Stadt
Experten in beratender Funktion
PD Dr. Freerk Baumann Köln
Prof. Dr. Matthias W. Beckmann Erlangen
Prof. Dr. Jens Blohmer Berlin
Prof. Dr. Peter Fasching Erlangen
Prof. Dr. Nadia Harbeck München
Prof. Dr. Peyman Hadji Frankfurt
Prof. Dr. Hans Hauner München
Prof. Dr. Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner München
Prof. Dr. Jens Huober Ulm
Prof. Dr. Jutta Hübner Jena
Prof. Dr. Christian Jackisch Offenbach
Prof. Dr. Sibylle Loibl Neu-Isenburg
Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Lück Hannover
Prof. Dr. Michael P. Lux Erlangen
Prof. Dr. Gunter von Minckwitz Neu-Isenburg
Prof. Dr. Volker Möbus Frankfurt
Prof. Dr. Volkmar Müller Hamburg
Prof. Dr. Ute Nöthlings Kiel
Prof. Dr. Marcus Schmidt Mainz
Prof. Dr. Rita Schmutzler Köln
Prof. Dr. Andreas Schneeweiss Heidelberg
Prof. Dr. Florian Schütz Heidelberg
Prof. Dr. Elmar Stickeler Aachen
Prof. Dr. Christoph Thomssen Halle (Saale)
Prof. Dr. Michael Untch Berlin
Dr. Simone Wesselmann, MBA Berlin
Dr. Barbara Zimmer, MPH, MA (Kompetenz-Centrum Onkologie, MDK Nordrhein, keine Autorin auf expliziten Wunsch des MDK) Düsseldorf
weitere Mitarbeiter
Katharina Brust, B. Sc. (Leitliniensekretariat) Würzburg
Dr. Jasmin Festl (Leitlinienbewertung, Literaturselektion) Würzburg
Steffi Hillmann, MPH (Leitlinienrecherche und -bewertung) Würzburg
PD Dr. Mathias Krockenberger (Literaturselektion) Würzburg
Stephanie Stangl, MPH Würzburg
Dr. Tanja Stüber (Literaturselektion) Würzburg

Abkürzungsverzeichnis der S3-Leitlinie Mammakarzinom

ADH

(intra-)duktale atypische Hyperplasie

AI

Aromatase Inhibitor

AML

akute myeloische Leukämie

APBI

Accelerated partial Breast Irradiation

ASCO

American Society of Clinical Oncology

ATL

Aktivitäten des täglichen Lebens

AUC

Area under the Curve

BÄK

Bundesärztekammer

bds

beiderseits

BET

brusterhaltende Therapie

BI-RADS

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

BMI

Body-Mass-Index

BPM

beidseitige prophylaktische Mastektomie

BPSO

beidseitige prophylaktische Salpingo-Oophorektomie

BRCA1/2

Breast Cancer associated Gene 1/2

BWS

Brustwirbelsäule

CAM

komplementäre und alternative Methoden

CAP

College of American Pathologists

CGA

Comprehensive geriatric Assessment

CHF

chronische Herzinsuffizienz

CIPN

chemotherapieinduzierte periphere Neuropathie

CISH

Chromogene-in-situ-Hybridisierung

CNB

Core Needle Biopsy

CT

Computertomografie

DCIS

duktales Carcinoma in situ

DBT

digitale Brusttomosynthese

DFS

Disease free Survival

DGS

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie

DKG

Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft

ECE

extrakapsuläres Tumorwachstum

EIC

extensive intraduktale Komponente

EK

Expertenkonsens

ER

Estrogenrezeptor

ESA

erythropoesestimulierende Agenzien

ESAS

Edmonton Symptom Assessments Scale

ET

Östrogentherapie

FEA

flache Epithelatypie

FISH

Fluoreszenz-in-situ-Hybridisierung

FN

febrile Neutropenie

FNA

Feinnadelaspiration

FNB

Feinnadelbiopsie

G-CSF

Granulozytenkoloniestimulierender Faktor

GnRHa

Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Agonist

HADS

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

HER2

Human epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2

HT

Hormontherapie

IARC

International Agency for Research on Cancer

IBC

inflammatorisches Mammakarzinom

iFE

intensivierte Früherkennung

IHC

Immunhistochemie

IMRT

intensitätsmodulierte Radiotherapie

IORT

intraoperative Strahlentherapie

IQWIG

Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen

ISH

In-situ-Hybridisierung

ITC

intrathekale Chemotherapie

KD

kognitive Dysfunktion

KM-MRT

Kontrastmittel-Magnetresonanztomografie

KPE

Komplexe Physikalische Entstauungstherapie

LABC

Locally advanced Breast Cancer

LCIS

lobuläres Carcinoma in situ

LK

Lymphknoten

LL

Leitlinie

LN

lobuläre Neoplasie

LoE

Level of Evidence

LVEF

linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion

LVI

(Lymph-)Gefäßinvasion

LWS

Lendenwirbelsäule

MAK

Mamillen-Areola-Komplex

MDS

myelodysplastisches Syndrom

MG

Mammografie

MRT

Magnetresonanztomografie

MSP

Mammografie-Screening-Programm

NACT

neoadjuvante Chemotherapie

NCCN

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

NICE

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

NNT

Number needed to treat

NZGG

New Zealand Guidelines Group

OP

Operation

OS

Overall Survival

PBI

Partial Breast Irradiation

pCR

pathologische Komplettremission

PET

Positronenemissionstomografie

PFS

progressionsfreies Überleben

PI

Proliferationsindex

PMRT

postoperative Strahlentherapie

PNP

Polyneuropathie

POS

Palliative Outcome Scale

PR

Progesteronrezeptor

PST

primär systemische Therapie

QoL

Quality of Life

RCT

randomisierte kontrollierte Studie

RFA

Radiofrequenzablation

ROR

Risk of Recurrence

RR

relatives Risiko

RS

Recurrence Score

SABCS

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium

SBRT

stereotaktische Bestrahlung

SGB

Sozialgesetzbuch

SIB

simultan integrierter Boost

SIGN

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network

SISH

silberverstärkte In-situ-Hybridisierung

SLN

Sentinel-Lymphknoten

SLNB

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

SSM

Skin-sparing Mastectomy

TACE

transarterielle Chemoembolisation

TILs

tumorinfiltrierende Lymphozyten

TNBC

triple-negative Breast Cancer

TNM-Klassifikation

Tumour-Node-Metastasis-Klassifikation

UICC

Union for International Cancer Control

US

Ultraschall

VMAT

Volu-Metric-Arc-Therapie

WHO

Weltgesundheitsorganisation

ZNS

Zentralnervensystem  

II  Leitlinienverwendung

Fragen und Ziele

Die wesentliche Rationale für die Aktualisierung der interdisziplinären Leitlinie (LL) ist die gleichbleibend hohe epidemiologische Bedeutung des Mammakarzinoms und die damit verbundene Krankheitslast. In diesem Zusammenhang sind die Auswirkungen neuer Versorgungskonzepte in ihrer Umsetzung zu prüfen.

Versorgungsbereich

Die LL betrifft die ambulante, stationäre und rehabilitative Versorgung.

Patienten/innenzielgruppe

Die Empfehlungen der LL richten sich an alle an Brustkrebs erkrankten Frauen und Männern sowie deren Angehörige.

Anwenderzielgruppe/Adressaten

Die Empfehlungen der LL richten sich an alle Ärzte und Angehörige von Berufsgruppen, die mit der Versorgung von Bürgerinnen im Rahmen der Früherkennung und Patientinnen und Patienten mit Brustkrebs befasst sind (Gynäkologen, Allgemeinmediziner, Humangenetikern, Radiologen, Pathologen, Radioonkologen, Hämatoonkologen, Psychoonkologen, Physiotherapeuten, Pflegekräfte etc.).

Verabschiedung und Gültigkeitsdauer

Diese Leitlinie besitzt eine Gültigkeitsdauer vom 01.12.2017 bis 30.11.2022. Diese Dauer ist aufgrund der inhaltlichen Zusammenhänge geschätzt. Der Bedarf zur Aktualisierung der Leitlinie ergibt sich zudem aus der Existenz neuer wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse und der Weiterentwicklung in der LL-Methodik. Zudem ist in regelmäßigen Abständen eine redaktionelle und inhaltliche Prüfung und Überarbeitung der Kernaussagen und Empfehlungen der LL erforderlich.

III  Leitlinienmethodik

Grundlagen

Die Methodik zur Erstellung dieser Leitlinie wird durch die Vergabe der Stufenklassifikation vorgegeben. Das AWMF-Regelwerk (Version 1.0) gibt entsprechende Regelungen vor. Es wird zwischen der niedrigsten Stufe (S1), der mittleren Stufe (S2) und der höchsten Stufe (S3) unterschieden. Die niedrigste Klasse definiert sich durch eine Zusammenstellung von Handlungsempfehlungen, erstellt durch eine nicht repräsentative Expertengruppe. Im Jahr 2004 wurde die Stufe S2 in die systematische evidenzrecherchebasierte (S2e) oder strukturelle konsensbasierte Unterstufe (S2k) gegliedert. In der höchsten Stufe S3 vereinigen sich beide Verfahren. Diese Leitlinie entspricht der Stufe S3.

Evidenzgraduierung

Zur Klassifikation des Verzerrungsrisikos der identifizierten Studien wurde in dieser Leitlinie das System des Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine in der Version von 2009 verwendet (Level 1 – 5). Dieses System sieht die Klassifikation der Studien für verschiedene klinische Fragestellungen (Nutzen von Therapie, prognostische Aussagekraft, diagnostische Wertigkeit) vor: detaillierte Inhalte, Abkürzungen und Notes siehe: https://www.cebm.net/2009/06/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/

Empfehlungsgraduierung

Während mit der Darlegung der Qualität der Evidenz (Evidenzstärke) die Belastbarkeit der publizierten Daten und damit das Ausmaß an Sicherheit/Unsicherheit des Wissens ausgedrückt wird, ist die Darlegung der Empfehlungsgrade Ausdruck des Ergebnisses der Abwägung erwünschter und unerwünschter Konsequenzen alternativer Vorgehensweisen. In der Leitlinie werden zu allen evidenzbasierten Statements und Empfehlungen das Evidenzlevel der zugrunde liegenden Studien sowie bei Empfehlungen zusätzlich die Stärke der Empfehlung (Empfehlungsgrad) ausgewiesen. Hinsichtlich der Stärke der Empfehlung werden in dieser Leitlinie 3 Empfehlungsgrade unterschieden ( Tab. 4 ), die sich auch in der Formulierung der Empfehlungen jeweils widerspiegeln.

Tab. 4  Schema der Empfehlungsgraduierung.

Empfehlungsgrad Empfehlungsgraduierung
A starke Empfehlung mit hoher Verbindlichkeit soll/ soll nicht
B Empfehlung mit mittlerer Verbindlichkeit sollte/ sollte nicht
0 offene Empfehlung mit geringer Verbindlichkeit kann/ kann nicht

Statements

Als Statements werden Darlegungen oder Erläuterungen von spezifischen Sachverhalten oder Fragestellungen ohne unmittelbare Handlungsaufforderung bezeichnet. Sie werden entsprechend der Vorgehensweise bei den Empfehlungen im Rahmen eines formalen Konsensusverfahrens verabschiedet und können entweder auf Studienergebnissen oder auf Expertenmeinungen beruhen.

Expertenkonsens

Wie der Name bereits ausdrückt, sind hier Konsensusentscheidungen speziell für Empfehlungen/Statements ohne vorige systemische Literaturrecherche (S2k) oder aufgrund von fehlender Evidenz (S2e/S3) gemeint. Der zu benutzende Expertenkonsens (EK) ist gleichbedeutend mit den Begrifflichkeiten aus anderen Leitlinien wie „Good Clinical Practice“ (GCP) oder „klinischer Konsensuspunkt“(KKP). Die Empfehlungsstärke graduiert sich gleichermaßen wie bereits im Kapitel Empfehlungsgraduierung beschrieben ohne die Benutzung der aufgezeigten Symbolik, sondern rein semantisch („soll“/„soll nicht“ bzw. „sollte“/„sollte nicht“ oder „kann“/„kann nicht“).

Leitlinienreport

Zur Bearbeitung der Themenkomplexe wurde für etwa 80% der Statements und Empfehlungen eine Leitlinienadaptation gemäß dem AWMF-Regelwerk vorgesehen. Hierfür wurde systematisch nach Quell-LL recherchiert, die spezifisch für Patientinnen mit Brustkrebs entwickelt wurden und nach November 2013 veröffentlicht wurden. Hier erfolgte ein Abgleich mit dem IQWIG-Leitlinienbericht Nr. 224 (Systematische Leitlinienrecherche und -bewertung sowie Extraktion relevanter Empfehlungen für das DMP Brustkrebs). Ein weiteres Einschlusskriterium war die Erfüllung methodischer Standards. LL wurden eingeschlossen, wenn sie mindestens 50% der Domäne 3 (Rigour of Development) des AGREE-II-Instruments erfüllten. Für Empfehlungen, die nicht adaptiert werden konnten bzw. neu generiert werden mussten, wurden eine entsprechende Recherche und Evidenzbewertungen nach dem AWMF-Regelwerk (systematische Recherche, Selektion, Erstellung von Evidenztabellen) festgelegt. Für diese neu zu entwerfenden Empfehlungen und Statements erfolgten die Formulierung der entsprechenden Schlüsselfragen und die systematische Recherche zunächst auf Basis von aggregierten Evidenzquellen (Metaanalysen, systematische Reviews, etc.), ggf. auch auf Einzelpublikationsbasis. Entsprechende Titel- und Abstractlisten wurden bis zur Identifikation der Volltexte von 2 unabhängigen Ratern selektiert. Nach Ablauf der Recherche- und Selektionsprozesse wurden von der Methodengruppe (hierfür wurde durch die Förderung eigens eine Wissenschaftlerin eingestellt) entsprechende Evidenztabellen als Grundlage der Konsensuskonferenzen angefertigt. Als Schema der Evidenzgraduierung wurde die Klassifikation des Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine (Version 2009) verwendet. Die Verabschiedung von Empfehlungen und Statements sowie die Festlegung der Empfehlungsgrade ( Tab. 4 ) erfolgten bei der Aktualisierung der LL im Rahmen von 2 strukturierten Konsensuskonferenzen mit vorgeschalteter Online-Vorabstimmung.

Entsprechende Recherchestrategien und Selektionsprozesse der Literatur bis hin zur Formulierung und Graduierung der Empfehlungen finden sich im Leitlinienreport.

IV  Leitlinie

1  Therapie des primären Mammakarzinoms

1.1  Operative Therapie des invasiven Karzinoms

1.2  Adjuvante Strahlentherapie des Mammakarzinoms

Nr. Empfehlungen/Statements EG LoE Quellen
4.36. Nach brusterhaltender Operation wegen eines invasiven Karzinoms soll eine Bestrahlung der betroffenen Brust durchgeführt werden.
Bei Patientinnen mit eindeutig begrenzter Lebenserwartung (< 10 Jahre) und einem kleinen (pT1), nodalnegativen (pN0), hormonrezeptorpositiven HER2-negativen Tumor mit endokriner adjuvanter Therapie, freie Schnittränder vorausgesetzt, kann unter Inkaufnahme eines erhöhten Lokalrezidivrisikos nach individueller Beratung auf die Strahlentherapie verzichtet werden.
Hinweis für alle Empfehlungen: Alle Einzelpositionen sind „oder“-Verknüpfungen. „Und“-Verknüpfungen sind mit einem „und“ dargestellt.
A 1a 40 ,  41 ,  42 ,  43 ,  44 ,  45 ,  46 ,  47
4.37. Die Radiotherapie der Brust sollte in Hypofraktionierung (Gesamtdosis ca. 40 Gy in ca. 15 – 16 Fraktionen in ca. 3 bis 5 Wochen) oder kann in konventioneller Fraktionierung (Gesamtdosis ca. 50 Gy in ca. 25 – 28 Fraktionen in ca. 5 – 6 Wochen) erfolgen. B/0 1a 48 ,  49 ,  50 ,  51 ,  52 ,  53 ,  54
4.38. Eine lokale Dosisaufsättigung (Boost-Bestrahlung) des Tumorbettes senkt die lokale Rezidivrate in der Brust, ohne dadurch einen signifikanten Überlebensvorteil zu bewirken.
Die Boostbestrahlung
  • soll daher bei allen ≤ 50 Jahre alten Patientinnen und

  • sollte bei > 51 Jahre alten Patientinnen nur bei erhöhtem lokalen Rückfallrisiko erfolgen (G3, HER2-positiv, triple-negativ, >T1).

A/B 1a 55 ,  56 ,  57 ,  58
4.39. Eine alleinige Teilbrustbestrahlung (als Alternative zur Nachbestrahlung der ganzen Brust) kann bei Patientinnen mit niedrigem Rezidivrisiko durchgeführt werden. 0 1a 59 ,  60 ,  61 ,  62 ,  63 ,  64
4.40. Die postoperative Radiotherapie der Brustwand nach Mastektomie senkt das Risiko eines lokoregionären Rezidivs und verbessert das Gesamtüberleben bei lokal fortgeschrittenen und nodal positiven Mammakarzinomen. A 1a 65
4.41. Bei folgenden Situationen soll die Strahlentherapie der Brustwand nach Mastektomie indiziert werden:
  • pT4

  • pT3 pN0 R0 bei Vorliegen von Risikofaktoren (Lymphgefäßinvasion [L1], Grading G3, prämenopausal, Alter < 50 Jahre)

  • R1-/R2-Resektion und fehlender Möglichkeit der sanierenden Nachresektion

a) Bei mehr als 3 befallenen axillären Lymphknoten soll eine Postmastektomiebestrahlung regelhaft durchgeführt werden.
b) Bei 1 – 3 tumorbefallenen axillären Lymphknoten soll eine Postmastektomiebestrahlung durchgeführt werden, wenn ein erhöhtes Rezidivrisiko vorliegt (z. B. wenn HER2-positiv, triple-negativ, G3, L1, Ki-67 > 30%, > 25% der entfernten Lymphknoten tumorbefallen; Alter ≤ 45 Jahren mit zusätzlichen Risikofaktoren wie medialer Tumorlokalisation oder Tumorgröße > 2 cm, oder ER-negativ).
c) Bei 1 – 3 tumorbefallenen axillären Lymphknoten und Tumoren mit geringem Lokalrezidivrisiko (pT1, G1, ER-positiv, HER2-negativ, wenigstens 3 Eigenschaften müssen zutreffen) sollte auf die PMRT verzichtet werden.
d) Bei allen anderen Patientinnen mit 1 – 3 tumorbefallenen axillären Lymphknoten soll die individuelle Indikation interdisziplinär festgelegt werden.
A 1a 65 ,  66 ,  67 ,  68 ,  69 ,  70 ,  71 ,  72 ,  73 ,  74 ,  75 ,  76 ,  77 ,  78 ,  79
4.42. Nach primärer (neoadjuvanter) systemischer Therapie soll sich die Indikation zur Postmastektomie-Radiotherapie am prätherapeutischen klinischen Stadium orientieren; bei pCR (ypT0 und ypN0) soll die Indikation im interdisziplinären Tumorboard abhängig vom Risikoprofil festgelegt werden. A 1a 80 ,  81 ,  82 ,  83
prätherapeutisch posttherapeutisch RT-BET 1 PMRT 2 RT-LAW 3
1 mit klassischer Tangente
2 falls eine Mastektomie durchgeführt wurde
3 zusammen mit PMRT oder RT wegen BET
4 Kriterien für hohes Rezidivrisiko:
pN0 prämenopausal, hohes Risiko: zentraler oder medialer Sitz, und (G2–3 und ER/PgR-negativ)
pN1a hohes Risiko: zentraler oder medialer Sitz und (G2–3 oder ER/PgR-negativ) oder prämenopausal, lateraler Sitz und (G2–3 oder ER/PgR-negativ)
lokal fortgeschritten pCR/no pCR ja ja ja
cT1/2 cN1+ ypT1+ o. ypN1+ (no pCR) ja ja ja
cT1/2 cN1+ ypT0/is ypN0 (SLNE ≥ 3 LK) ja Risikofälle 4
cT1/2 cN0 (Sonogr. obligat) ypT0/is ypN0 (SLNE ≥ 3 LK) ja nein nein
Nr. Empfehlungen/Statements EG LoE Quellen
4.43. Die adjuvante Bestrahlung der regionalen Lymphabflussgebiete verbessert das krankheitsfreie Überleben und das Gesamtüberleben in Untergruppen von Patientinnen. 1a 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
4.44. a) Die Bestrahlung der supra-/infraklavikulären Lymphknoten kann bei Patientinnen mit pN0 oder pN1mi in folgender Situation erfolgen, sofern die folgenden Bedingungen alle erfüllt sind: prämenopausal und zentraler oder medialer Sitz und G2–3 und ER/PgR-negativ. 0 2a/2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
b) Die Bestrahlung der supra/infraklavikulären Lymphknoten sollte bei Patientinnen mit 1 – 3 befallenen Lymphknoten in folgenden Situationen erfolgen:
zentraler oder medialer Sitz und (G2–3 oder ER/PgR-negativ)
prämenopausal, lateraler Sitz und (G2–3 oder ER/PgR-negativ)
B 2a 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
c) Die Bestrahlung der supra/infraklavikulären Lymphknoten soll generell bei Patientinnen mit > 3 befallenen axillären Lymphknoten erfolgen. A 2a 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
4.45. a) Die Bestrahlung der A.-mammaria-interna-Lymphknoten kann bei axillär pN0- oder axillär pN1mi-Patientinnen in folgender Situation erfolgen:
  • prämenopausal und zentraler oder medialer Sitz und G2–3 und ER/PgR-negativ

0 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
b) Die Bestrahlung der A.-mammaria-interna-Lymphknoten sollte bei Patientinnen mit 1 – 3 befallenen Lymphknoten in folgenden Situationen erfolgen:
  • zentraler oder medialer Sitz und (G2–3 oder ER/PgR-negativ)

  • prämenopausal, lateraler Sitz und (G2–3 oder ER/PgR-negativ

B 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
c) Die Bestrahlung der A.-mammaria-interna-Lymphknoten sollte bei Patientinnen mit > 3 befallenen axillären Lymphknoten in folgender Situation erfolgen:
  • G2–3 oder ER/PgR-negativ

B 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88
d) Bei nachgewiesenem Befall der A.-mammaria-interna-Lymphknoten sollten diese bestrahlt werden. B 2b 84 ,  85 ,  86 ,  87 ,  88 ,  89 ,  90
e) Die Bestrahlung der A.-mammaria-interna-Lymphknoten soll bei erhöhtem kardialen Risiko oder einer Therapie mit Trastuzumab individuell interdisziplinär entschieden werden. A 4 91 ,  92
4.46. Eine erweiterte axilläre Bestrahlung kann bei Patientinnen mit 1 – 2 befallenen axillären Wächterlymphknoten erfolgen, sofern keine axilläre Dissektion durchgeführt oder interdisziplinär keine weitere lokale axilläre Therapie vereinbart wurde (analog ACOSOG Z0011). Die Entscheidung über das geeignete Vorgehen soll interdisziplinär getroffen werden. 0/A 2b 35 ,  93 ,  94 ,  95
4.47. Die Radiotherapie des Lymphabflusses sollte in konventioneller Fraktionierung (5 × wöchentlich 1,8 – 2,0 Gy, Gesamtdosis ca. 50 Gy in ca. 5 – 6 Wochen) oder kann in Hypofraktionierung (Gesamtdosis ca. 40 Gy in ca. 15 – 16 Fraktionen in ca. 3 – 5 Wochen) erfolgen. EK
4.48. Bei Patientinnen mit primär inoperablen bzw. inflammatorischen Karzinomen soll eine primäre Systemtherapie, gefolgt von Operation und postoperativer Strahlentherapie oder bei weiter bestehender Inoperabilität alleiniger oder präoperativer Strahlentherapie durchgeführt werden. A 1b 96 ,  97
4.49. a) Postoperative Chemotherapie und Radiotherapie sollen sequenziell erfolgen.
Hinweis: Die Überlegenheit einer speziellen Sequenz (erst Chemotherapie bzw. erst Radiotherapie) ist nicht belegt. Für die klinische Praxis hat sich die Sequenz von Chemotherapie mit nachfolgender Radiotherapie etabliert.
A 1b 98 ,  99 ,  100 ,  101
b) Bei alleiniger RT sollte diese innerhalb einer 8-wöchigen Frist postoperativ eingeleitet werden. 102 ,  103
c) Eine adjuvante endokrine Therapie kann unabhängig von der Radiotherapie eingeleitet werden. (1a)
Eine Therapie mit Trastuzumab kann während einer Strahlentherapie fortgeführt werden. Bei einer simultanen A.-mammaria-Lymphknoten-Bestrahlung soll das Vorgehen interdisziplinär festgelegt werden. (4)
91 ,  92 ,  104 ,  105

1.3  Systemische adjuvante Therapie (endokrine, Chemo-, Antikörpertherapie)

1.4  Mammakarzinom in Schwangerschaft und Stillzeit, Schwangerschaft nach Mammakarzinom, Fertilitätserhalt

1.5  Mammakarzinom der älteren Patientin

1.6  Mammakarzinom des Mannes

Die Diagnostik und Therapie des Mammakarzinoms des Mannes sollte interdisziplinär erfolgen und erfordert aufgrund der tumorbiologischen Eigenschaften und Ähnlichkeit zu dem Mammakarzinom der Frau gynäkoonkologische Fachexpertise. Eine interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit von Brustzentren, niedergelassenen Gynäkologen, Urologen und Andrologen wird insbesondere angeraten bei der Behandlung der sexuellen Störungen durch die Tamoxifentherapie, bei Männern mit BRCA-Mutationen 233 mit einem damit einhergehenden erhöhten Risiko für Prostatakrebs und bei Männern mit Brustkrebs, bei denen eine Behandlung des benignen Prostatasyndroms erfolgen soll 234 .

Nr. Empfehlungen/Statements EG LoE Quellen
9.1. a) Eine frühzeitige ärztliche Konsultation soll durch Information von Männern über die Erkrankung, insbesondere über Symptome und Veränderungen der Brust und durch die Aufforderung zur Selbstbeobachtung gefördert werden.
b) Die Basisdiagnostik soll bei Verdacht auf maligne Befunde durch Anamnese, klinische Untersuchung, Mammografie sowie Ultraschalldiagnostik der Brust und der Lymphabflussregionen erfolgen. Zum diagnostischen Einsatz der KM-MRT liegen keine Daten vor.
c) Die weiterführende Diagnostik und das Staging/Ausbreitungsdiagnostik soll bei Brust- und Axillabefunden entsprechend der Empfehlung für Frauen erfolgen, wobei zum diagnostischen Einsatz von KM-MRT keine Daten vorliegen.
EK
9.2. a) Die Operation hat die vollständige Tumorentfernung zum Ziel und sollte als Mastektomie durchgeführt werden. Bei günstigem Größenverhältnis zwischen Tumor und Brust sollte die Brusterhaltung erwogen werden.
b) Bei klinisch unauffälliger Axilla (cN0) soll eine Sentinel-Lymphknoten-Entfernung nach den gleichen Regeln wie bei der Frau vorgenommen werden.
EK
9.3. Bei größeren Tumoren (≥ 2 cm), bei axillärem Lymphkotenbefall und bei negativem Hormonrezeptor soll eine adjuvante Radiotherapie der Brustwand und ggf. der Lymphabflusswege (Indikation wie bei der Frau) unabhängig vom Operationsverfahren erfolgen. EK
9.4. Die adjuvante Chemotherapie sowie die Antikörpertherapie (anti-HER2) soll nach den gleichen Regeln wie bei der Frau indiziert und durchgeführt werden. EK
9.5. Patienten mit einem hormonrezeptorpositiven Mammakarzinom sollen eine adjuvante endokrine Therapie mit Tamoxifen in der Regel über 5 Jahre erhalten. Für eine Behandlung über 5 Jahre hinaus liegen keine Daten vor. Analog zum weiblichen Mammakarzinom kann diese in Einzelfällen erwogen werden. EK
9.6. a) Die Therapie bei metastasierter Erkrankung sollte nach den gleichen Regeln wie bei der Frau erfolgen.
b) Es ist unklar, ob Aromatasehemmer ohne Suppression der testikulären Funktion beim Mann ausreichend wirksam sind. Daher sollten Aromatasehemmer in Kombination mit einer Suppression der testikulären Funktion gegeben werden.
EK
9.7. Die Teilnahme an Studien/Registern sollte Männern mit Brustkrebs angeboten und ermöglicht werden. EK
9.8. Eine genetische Beratung soll allen Männern mit Brustkrebs empfohlen werden. EK
9.9. Die Ausgestaltung der Nachsorge einschließlich der bildgebenden Diagnostik soll in Analogie zum Vorgehen der Frauen erfolgen. EK
9.10. Qualifizierte und sachdienliche genderspezifische Informationen (Print und Internet) sollten dem Patienten von dem behandelnden Fachpersonal zur Verfügung gestellt werden und der Zugang zum speziellen Angebot der Selbsthilfegruppen ermöglicht werden. EK

Tab. 5  Risikofaktoren für Männer, an einem Mammakarzinom zu erkranken.

Alter unimodale Altersverteilung mit der höchsten Inzidenz im 71. Lebensjahr
Herkunft erhöhtes Risiko bei Afrikanern und karibischen Männern meist auch in fortgeschrittenen Stadien bei Erstdiagnose
Keimbahnmutationen bei positiver Familienanamnese beider Geschlechter 2,5-faches Erkrankungsrisiko; BRCA2-Mutationen bei 4 – 40% aller Fälle nachzuweisen; RAD51B-Gen-Alterationen erhöhen das Risiko um 50%
endokrine Ursachen exogene Östrogenbelastung z. B. durch Hormontherapie für Transsexuelle, Behandlung des Prostatakarzinoms, berufliche Exposition
erhöhte endogene Östrogensynthese: Klinefelter-Syndrom, Adipositas
erniedrigte Androgenspiegel: Orchidektomie, Hodenhochstand, mumpsassoziierte Orchitis, Leberzirrhose
Umwelt Lifestyle: Adipositas, mangelnde Bewegung, exzessiver Alkoholkonsum
Strahlenexposition: Nuklearwaffen, Radiotherapie, diagnostische Radiologie
berufliche Exposition: hohe Temperaturen, Erdöl, Abgase

2  Therapie (Rezidiv/metastasiert)

2.1  Therapie des lokalen/lokoregionalen Rezidivs

2.2  Fernmetastasen

Leitlinienprogramm. Herausgeber.

graphic file with name 10-1055-a-0646-4630-ilogo_gg_de.jpg

graphic file with name 10-1055-a-0646-4630-ilogo_oeggg_de.jpg

graphic file with name 10-1055-a-0646-4630-ilogo_gs_de.jpg

Federführende Fachgesellschaften

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. (DGGG)

Repräsentanz der DGGG und Fachgesellschaften

Hausvogteiplatz 12, DE-10117 Berlin

info@dggg.de

http://www.dggg.de/

Präsident der DGGG

Prof. Dr. Anton Scharl

Direktor der Frauenkliniken

Klinikum St. Marien Amberg

Mariahilfbergweg 7, DE-92224 Amberg

Kliniken Nordoberpfalz AG

Söllnerstraße 16, DE-92637 Weiden

DGGG-Leitlinienbeauftragte

Prof. Dr. med. Matthias W. Beckmann

Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Frauenklinik

Universitätsstraße 21–23, DE-91054 Erlangen

Prof. Dr. med. Erich-Franz Solomayer

Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes

Geburtshilfe und Reproduktionsmedizin

Kirrberger Straße, Gebäude 9, DE-66421 Homburg

Leitlinienkoordination

Dr. med. Paul Gaß, Christina Meixner

Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Frauenklinik

Universitätsstraße 21–23, DE-91054 Erlangen

fk-dggg-leitlinien@uk-erlangen.de

http://www.dggg.de/leitlinienstellungnahmen

Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (OEGGG)

Innrain 66A/5. Stock, AT-6020 Innsbruck

stephanie.leutgeb@oeggg.at

http://www.oeggg.at

Präsidentin der OEGGG

Prof. Dr. med. Petra Kohlberger

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde Wien

Währinger Gürtel 18–20, AT-1180 Wien

OEGGG-Leitlinienbeauftragte

Prof. Dr. med. Karl Tamussino

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe Graz

Auenbruggerplatz 14, AT-8036 Graz

Prof. Dr. med. Hanns Helmer

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde Wien

Währinger Gürtel 18–20, AT-1090 Wien

Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGGG)

Gynécologie Suisse SGGG

Altenbergstraße 29, Postfach 6, CH-3000 Bern 8

sekretariat@sggg.ch

http://www.sggg.ch/

Präsident der SGGG

Dr. med. David Ehm

FMH für Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie

Nägeligasse 13, CH-3011 Bern

SGGG-Leitlinienbeauftragte

Prof. Dr. med. Daniel Surbek

Universitätsklinik für Frauenheilkunde

Geburtshilfe und feto-maternale Medizin

Inselspital Bern

Effingerstraße 102, CH-3010 Bern

Prof. Dr. med. René Hornung

Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Frauenklinik

Rorschacher Straße 95

CH-9007 St. Gallen


Articles from Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde are provided here courtesy of Thieme Medical Publishers

RESOURCES