@article{HarterHaukeHeitzetal.2017,
  author    = {Harter, Philipp and Hauke, Jan and Heitz, Florian and Reuss, Alexander and Kommoss, Stefan and Marm{\´e}, Frederik and Heimbach, Andr{\´e} and Prieske, Katharina and Richters, Lisa and Burges, Alexander and Neidhardt, Guido and de Gregorio, Nikolaus and El-Balat, Ahmed and Hilpert, Felix and Meier, Werner and Kimmig, Rainer and Kast, Karin and Sehouli, Jalid and Baumann, Klaus and Jackisch, Christian and Park-Simon, Tjoung-Won and Hanker, Lars and Kr{\"o}ber, Sandra and Pfisterer, Jacobus and Gevensleben, Heidrun and Schnelzer, Andreas and Dietrich, Dimo and Neunh{\"o}ffer, Tanja and Krockenberger, Mathias and Brucker, Sara Y. and N{\"u}rnberg, Peter and Thiele, Holger and Altm{\"u}ller, Janine and Lamla, Josefin and Elser, Gabriele and du Bois, Andreas and Hahnen, Eric and Schmutzler, Rita},
  title     = {Prevalence of deleterious germline variants in risk genes including \(BRCA1/2\) in consecutive ovarian cancer patients (AGO-TR-1)},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {10},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0186043},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-173553},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background Identification of families at risk for ovarian cancer offers the opportunity to consider prophylactic surgery thus reducing ovarian cancer mortality. So far, identification of potentially affected families in Germany was solely performed via family history and numbers of affected family members with breast or ovarian cancer. However, neither the prevalence of deleterious variants in \(BRCA1/2\) in ovarian cancer in Germany nor the reliability of family history as trigger for genetic counselling has ever been evaluated. Methods Prospective counseling and germline testing of consecutive patients with primary diagnosis or with platinum-sensitive relapse of an invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Testing included 25 candidate and established risk genes. Among these 25 genes, 16 genes (\(ATM\), \(BRCA1\), \(BRCA2\), \(CDH1\), \(CHEK2\), \(MLH1\), \(MSH2\), \(MSH6\), \(NBN\), \(PMS2\), \(PTEN\), \(PALB2\), \(RAD51C\), \(RAD51D\), \(STK11\), \(TP53\)) were defined as established cancer risk genes. A positive family history was defined as at least one relative with breast cancer or ovarian cancer or breast cancer in personal history. Results In total, we analyzed 523 patients: 281 patients with primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer and 242 patients with relapsed disease. Median age at primary diagnosis was 58 years (range 16-93) and 406 patients (77.6\%) had a high-grade serous ovarian cancer. In total, 27.9\% of the patients showed at least one deleterious variant in all 25 investigated genes and 26.4\% in the defined 16 risk genes. Deleterious variants were most prevalent in the \(BRCA1\) (15.5\%), \(BRCA2\) (5.5\%), \(RAD51C\) (2.5\%) and \(PALB2\) (1.1\%) genes. The prevalence of deleterious variants did not differ significantly between patients at primary diagnosis and relapse. The prevalence of deleterious variants in \(BRCA1/2\) (and in all 16 risk genes) in patients <60 years was 30.2\% (33.2\%) versus 10.6\% (18.9\%) in patients \(\geq\)60 years. Family history was positive in 43\% of all patients. Patients with a positive family history had a prevalence of deleterious variants of 31.6\% (36.0\%) versus 11.4\% (17.6\%) and histologic subtype of high grade serous ovarian cancer versus other showed a prevalence of deleterious variants of 23.2\% (29.1\%) and 10.2\% (14.8\%), respectively. Testing only for \(BRCA1/2\) would miss in our series more than 5\% of the patients with a deleterious variant in established risk genes. Conclusions 26.4\% of all patients harbor at least one deleterious variant in established risk genes. The threshold of 10\% mutation rate which is accepted for reimbursement by health care providers in Germany was observed in all subgroups analyzed and neither age at primary diagnosis nor histo-type or family history sufficiently enough could identify a subgroup not eligible for genetic counselling and testing. Genetic testing should therefore be offered to every patient with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer and limiting testing to \(BRCA1/2\) seems to be not sufficient.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DiessnerWischnewskyStueberetal.2016,
  author    = {Diessner, Joachim and Wischnewsky, Manfred and St{\"u}ber, Tanja and Stein, Roland and Krockenberger, Mathias and H{\"a}usler, Sebastian and Janni, Wolfgang and Kreienberg, Rolf and Blettner, Maria and Schwentner, Lukas and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Bartmann, Catharina},
  title     = {Evaluation of clinical parameters influencing the development of bone metastasis in breast cancer},
  series = {BMC Cancer},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {BMC Cancer},
  number    = {307},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12885-016-2345-7},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-161173},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background The development of metastases is a negative prognostic parameter for the clinical outcome of breast cancer. Bone constitutes the first site of distant metastases for many affected women. The purpose of this retrospective multicentre study was to evaluate if and how different variables such as primary tumour stage, biological and histological subtype, age at primary diagnosis, tumour size, the number of affected lymph nodes as well as grading influence the development of bone-only metastases. Methods This retrospective German multicentre study is based on the BRENDA collective and included 9625 patients with primary breast cancer recruited from 1992 to 2008. In this analysis, we investigated a subgroup of 226 patients with bone-only metastases. Association between bone-only relapse and clinico-pathological risk factors was assessed in multivariate models using the tree-building algorithms "exhausted CHAID (Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detectors)" and CART(Classification and Regression Tree), as well as radial basis function networks (RBF-net), feedforward multilayer perceptron networks (MLP) and logistic regression. Results Multivariate analysis demonstrated that breast cancer subtypes have the strongest influence on the development of bone-only metastases (χ2 = 28). 29.9 \% of patients with luminal A or luminal B (ABC-patients) and 11.4 \% with triple negative BC (TNBC) or HER2-overexpressing tumours had bone-only metastases (p < 0.001). Five different mathematical models confirmed this correlation. The second important risk factor is the age at primary diagnosis. Moreover, BC subcategories influence the overall survival from date of metastatic disease of patients with bone-only metastases. Patients with bone-only metastases and TNBC (p < 0.001; HR = 7.47 (95 \% CI: 3.52-15.87) or HER2 overexpressing BC (p = 0.007; HR = 3.04 (95 \% CI: 1.36-6.80) have the worst outcome compared to patients with luminal A or luminal B tumours and bone-only metastases. Conclusion The bottom line of different mathematical models is the prior importance of subcategories of breast cancer and the age at primary diagnosis for the appearance of osseous metastases. The primary tumour stage, histological subtype, tumour size, the number of affected lymph nodes, grading and NPI seem to have only a minor influence on the development of bone-only metastases.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SteinWollschlaegerKreienbergetal.2016,
  author    = {Stein, Roland Gregor and Wollschl{\"a}ger, Daniel and Kreienberg, Rolf and Janni, Wolfgang and Wischnewsky, Manfred and Diessner, Joachim and St{\"u}ber, Tanja and Bartmann, Catharina and Krockenberger, Mathias and Wischhusen, J{\"o}rg and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Blettner, Maria and Schwentner, Lukas},
  title     = {The impact of breast cancer biological subtyping on tumor size assessment by ultrasound and mammography - a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 6543 primary breast cancer patients},
  series = {BMC Cancer},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {BMC Cancer},
  number    = {549},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12885-016-2426-7},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-161050},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background Mammography and ultrasound are the gold standard imaging techniques for preoperative assessment and for monitoring the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Maximum accuracy in predicting pathological tumor size non-invasively is critical for individualized therapy and surgical planning. We therefore aimed to assess the accuracy of tumor size measurement by ultrasound and mammography in a multicentered health services research study. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from 6543 patients with unifocal, unilateral primary breast cancer. The maximum tumor diameter was measured by ultrasound and/or mammographic imaging. All measurements were compared to final tumor diameter determined by postoperative histopathological examination. We compared the precision of each imaging method across different patient subgroups as well as the method-specific accuracy in each patient subgroup. Results Overall, the correlation with histology was 0.61 for mammography and 0.60 for ultrasound. Both correlations were higher in pT2 cancers than in pT1 and pT3. Ultrasound as well as mammography revealed a significantly higher correlation with histology in invasive ductal compared to lobular cancers (p < 0.01). For invasive lobular cancers, the mammography showed better correlation with histology than ultrasound (p = 0.01), whereas there was no such advantage for invasive ductal cancers. Ultrasound was significantly superior for HR negative cancers (p < 0.001). HER2/neu positive cancers were also more precisely assessed by ultrasound (p < 0.001). The size of HER2/neu negative cancers could be more accurately predicted by mammography (p < 0.001). Conclusion This multicentered health services research approach demonstrates that predicting tumor size by mammography and ultrasound provides accurate results. Biological tumor features do, however, affect the diagnostic precision.},
  language  = {en}
}