@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} } @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{EbnerWoeckelSchwentneretal.2019, author = {Ebner, Florian and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Schwentner, Lukas and Blettner, Maria and Janni, Wolfgang and Kreienberg, Rolf and Wischnewsky, Manfred}, title = {Does the number of removed axillary lymphnodes in high risk breast cancer patients influence the survival?}, series = {BMC Cancer}, volume = {19}, journal = {BMC Cancer}, doi = {10.1186/s12885-019-5292-2}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226445}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Background The decision making process for axillary dissection has changed in recent years for patients with early breast cancer and positive sentinel lymph nodes (LN). The question now arises, what is the optimal surgical treatment for patients with positive axillary LN (pN+). This article tries to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a survival benefit for breast cancer patients with 3 or more positive LN (pN3+) and with more than 10 removed LN? (2) Is there a survival benefit for high risk breast cancer patients (triple negative or Her2 + breast cancer) and with 3 or more positive LN (pN3+) with more than 10 removed LN? (3) In pN + patients is the prognostic value of the lymph node ratio (LNR) of pN+/pN removed impaired if 10 or less LN are removed? Methods A retrospective database analysis of the multi center cohort database BRENDA (breast cancer under evidence based guidelines) with data from 9625 patients from 17 breast centers was carried out. Guideline adherence was defined by the 2008 German National consensus guidelines. Results 2992 out of 9625 patients had histological confirmed positive lymph nodes. The most important factors for survival were intrinsic sub types, tumor size and guideline adherent chemo- and hormonal treatment (and age at diagnosis for overall survival (OAS)). Uni-and multivariable analyses for recurrence free survival (RFS) and OAS showed no significant survival benefit when removing more than 10 lymph nodes even for high-risk patients. The mean and median of LNR were significantly higher in the pN+ patients with ≤10 excised LN compared to patients with > 10 excised LN. LNR was in both, uni-and multivariable, analysis a highly significant prognostic factor for RFS and OAS in both subgroups of pN + patients with less respective more than 10 excised LN. Multivariable COX regression analysis was adjusted by age, tumor size, intrinsic sub types and guideline adherent adjuvant systemic therapy. Conclusion The removal of more than 10 LN did not result in a significant survival benefit even in high risk pN + breast cancer patients.}, 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} } @article{WischnewskySchwentnerDiessneretal.2021, author = {Wischnewsky, Manfred and Schwentner, Lukas and Diessner, Joachim and De Gregorio, Amelie and Joukhadar, Ralf and Davut, Dayan and Salmen, Jessica and Bekes, Inga and Kiesel, Matthias and M{\"u}ller-Reiter, Max and Blettner, Maria and Wolters, Regine and Janni, Wolfgang and Kreienberg, Rolf and W{\"o}ckel, Achim and Ebner, Florian}, title = {BRENDA-Score, a hghly significant, internally and externally validated prognostic marker for metastatic recurrence: analysis of 10,449 primary breast cancer patients}, series = {Cancers}, volume = {13}, journal = {Cancers}, number = {13}, issn = {2072-6694}, doi = {10.3390/cancers13133121}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-241064}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Background Current research in breast cancer focuses on individualization of local and systemic therapies with adequate escalation or de-escalation strategies. As a result, about two-thirds of breast cancer patients can be cured, but up to one-third eventually develop metastatic disease, which is considered incurable with currently available treatment options. This underscores the importance to develop a metastatic recurrence score to escalate or de-escalate treatment strategies. Patients and methods Data from 10,499 patients were available from 17 clinical cancer registries (BRENDA-project. In total, 8566 were used to develop the BRENDA-Index. This index was calculated from the regression coefficients of a Cox regression model for metastasis-free survival (MFS). Based on this index, patients were categorized into very high, high, intermediate, low, and very low risk groups forming the BRENDA-Score. Bootstrapping was used for internal validation and an independent dataset of 1883 patients for external validation. The predictive accuracy was checked by Harrell's c-index. In addition, the BRENDA-Score was analyzed as a marker for overall survival (OS) and compared to the Nottingham prognostic score (NPS). Results: Intrinsic subtypes, tumour size, grading, and nodal status were identified as statistically significant prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. The five prognostic groups of the BRENDA-Score showed highly significant (p < 0.001) differences regarding MFS:low risk: hazard ratio (HR) = 2.4, 95\%CI (1.7-3.3); intermediate risk: HR = 5.0, 95\%CI.(3.6-6.9); high risk: HR = 10.3, 95\%CI (7.4-14.3) and very high risk: HR = 18.1, 95\%CI (13.2-24.9). The external validation showed congruent results. A multivariate Cox regression model for OS with BRENDA-Score and NPS as covariates showed that of these two scores only the BRENDA-Score is significant (BRENDA-Score p < 0.001; NPS p = 0.447). Therefore, the BRENDA-Score is also a good prognostic marker for OS. Conclusion: The BRENDA-Score is an internally and externally validated robust predictive tool for metastatic recurrence in breast cancer patients. It is based on routine parameters easily accessible in daily clinical care. In addition, the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival. Highlights: The BRENDA-Score is a highly significant predictive tool for metastatic recurrence of breast cancer patients. The BRENDA-Score is stable for at least the first five years after primary diagnosis, i.e., the sensitivities and specificities of this predicting system is rather similar to the NPI with AUCs between 0.76 and 0.81 the BRENDA-Score is a good prognostic marker for overall survival.}, language = {en} }