TY - JOUR A1 - Diessner, Joachim A1 - Wischnewsky, Manfred A1 - Blettner, Maria A1 - Häusler, Sebastian A1 - Janni, Wolfgang A1 - Kreienberg, Rolf A1 - Stein, Roland A1 - Stüber, Tanja A1 - Schwentner, Lukas A1 - Bartmann, Catharina A1 - Wöckel, Achim T1 - Do Patients with Luminal A Breast Cancer Profit from Adjuvant Systemic Therapy? A Retrospective Multicenter Study JF - PLoS ONE N2 - 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. KW - breast cancer KW - hormones KW - endocrine therapy KW - cancer detection and diagnosis KW - cancer treatment KW - cancer chemotherapy KW - lymph nodes KW - hormona therapy Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-178217 VL - 11 IS - 12 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Diessner, Joachim A1 - Wischnewsky, Manfred A1 - Stüber, Tanja A1 - Stein, Roland A1 - Krockenberger, Mathias A1 - Häusler, Sebastian A1 - Janni, Wolfgang A1 - Kreienberg, Rolf A1 - Blettner, Maria A1 - Schwentner, Lukas A1 - Wöckel, Achim A1 - Bartmann, Catharina T1 - Evaluation of clinical parameters influencing the development of bone metastasis in breast cancer JF - BMC Cancer N2 - 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. KW - BRENDA KW - breast cancer KW - bone metastases KW - skeleton KW - breast cancer subtypes Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-161173 VL - 16 IS - 307 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Stein, Roland Gregor A1 - Wollschläger, Daniel A1 - Kreienberg, Rolf A1 - Janni, Wolfgang A1 - Wischnewsky, Manfred A1 - Diessner, Joachim A1 - Stüber, Tanja A1 - Bartmann, Catharina A1 - Krockenberger, Mathias A1 - Wischhusen, Jörg A1 - Wöckel, Achim A1 - Blettner, Maria A1 - Schwentner, Lukas T1 - 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 JF - BMC Cancer N2 - 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. KW - histopathology KW - breast cancer KW - ultrasound KW - mammography KW - tumor size Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-161050 VL - 16 IS - 549 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Wischnewsky, Manfred A1 - Schwentner, Lukas A1 - Diessner, Joachim A1 - De Gregorio, Amelie A1 - Joukhadar, Ralf A1 - Davut, Dayan A1 - Salmen, Jessica A1 - Bekes, Inga A1 - Kiesel, Matthias A1 - Müller-Reiter, Max A1 - Blettner, Maria A1 - Wolters, Regine A1 - Janni, Wolfgang A1 - Kreienberg, Rolf A1 - Wöckel, Achim A1 - Ebner, Florian T1 - BRENDA-Score, a hghly significant, internally and externally validated prognostic marker for metastatic recurrence: analysis of 10,449 primary breast cancer patients JF - Cancers N2 - 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. KW - breast cancer KW - risk KW - prediction KW - BRENDA KW - score KW - follow up Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-241064 SN - 2072-6694 VL - 13 IS - 13 ER -