@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}
}
@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}
}