@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{DiessnerWischnewskyBlettneretal.2016,
  author    = {Diessner, Joachim and Wischnewsky, Manfred and Blettner, Maria and H{\"a}usler, Sebastian and Janni, Wolfgang and Kreienberg, Rolf and Stein, Roland and St{\"u}ber, Tanja and Schwentner, Lukas and Bartmann, Catharina and W{\"o}ckel, Achim},
  title     = {Do Patients with Luminal A Breast Cancer Profit from Adjuvant Systemic Therapy? A Retrospective Multicenter Study},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {12},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0168730},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-178217},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background Luminal A breast cancers respond well to anti-hormonal therapy (HT), are associated with a generally favorable prognosis and constitute the majority of breast cancer subtypes. HT is the mainstay of treatment of these patients, accompanied by an acceptable profile of side effects, whereas the added benefit of chemotherapy (CHT), including anthracycline and taxane-based programs, is less clear-cut and has undergone a process of critical revision. Methods In the framework of the BRENDA collective, we analyzed the benefits of CHT compared to HT in 4570 luminal A patients (pts) with primary diagnosis between 2001 and 2008. The results were adjusted by nodal status, age, tumor size and grading. Results There has been a progressive reduction in the use of CHT in luminal A patients during the last decade. Neither univariate nor multivariate analyses showed any statistically significant differences in relapse free survival (RFS) with the addition of CHT to adjuvant HT, independent of the nodal status, age, tumor size or grading. Even for patients with more than 3 affected lymph nodes, there was no significant difference (univariate: p = 0.865; HR 0.94; 95\% CI: 0.46-1.93; multivariate: p = 0.812; HR 0.92; 95\% CI: 0.45-1.88). Conclusions The addition of CHT to HT provides minimal or no clinical benefit at all to patients with luminal A breast cancer, independent of the RFS-risk. Consequently, risk estimation cannot be the initial step in the decisional process. These findings-that are in line with several publications-should encourage the critical evaluation of applying adjuvant CHT to patients with luminal A breast cancer.},
  language  = {en}
}