Advances in Breast Cancer – Looking Back over the Year

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Treatment options as well as the characteristics for therapeutic decisions in patients with primary and advanced breast cancer are increasing in number and variety. New targeted therapies in combination with established chemotherapy schemes are broadening the spectrum, yet not every new, promising combination achieves a better result. New data from the field of pharmacogenomics point to prognostic and predictive factors that take not only the properties of the tumour but also the genetic disposition of the patient into consideration. Current therapeutic decision-making is thus based on a combination of classical clinical and modern molecular biomarkers. Health-economic concerns are also being taken into consideration more frequently, meaning political decisions may also become a factor. This review presents the trends over the past year.

Zusammenfassung

Die Behandlungsoptionen und auch die Charakteristika zur Therapieentscheidung der Patientin mit einem primären und fortgeschrittenen Mammakarzinom werden immer vielfältiger. Neue zielgerichtete Therapien in Kombination mit etablierten Chemotherapien erweitern das Spektrum, doch potenziell vielversprechende Kombinationen bringen nicht immer ein besseres Ergebnis. Neueste Daten aus der Pharmakogenomik weisen auf Prognose- und Prädiktivfaktoren hin, die nicht nur die Eigenschaften des Tumors, sondern auch die vererbbaren genetischen Eigenschaften der Patientin berücksichtigen. Die aktuelle Therapieentscheidung ist somit mittlerweile eine Kombination aus klassischerweise klinischen und modernen molekularen Biomarkern. Immer häufiger werden auch gesundheitsökonomische Aspekte berücksichtigt, sodass auch gesundheitspolitische Überlegungen eine Rolle spielen können. Diese Übersichtsarbeit stellt die Entwicklung des vergangenen Jahres dar.

• References

• 1 Strehl JD, Wachter DL, Fasching PA et al. Invasive breast cancer: recognition of molecular subtypes. Breast Care (Basel) 2011; 6: 258-264
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Schmidt M, Fasching PA, Beckmann MW et al. Biomarkers in breast cancer – an update. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2012; 72: 819-832
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Fehm T, Janni W, Kummel S et al. Review: SABCS 2010–current treatment options for patients with breast cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 260-276
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Kolberg HC, Luftner D, Lux MP et al. Breast cancer 2012–new aspects. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2012; 72: 602-615
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Kummel S, Kolberg HC, Luftner D et al. Breast cancer 2011–new aspects. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 939-953
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2012; 490: 61-70
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Shah SP, Roth A, Goya R et al. The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers. Nature 2012; 486: 395-399
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Ellis MJ, Ding L, Shen D et al. Whole-genome analysis informs breast cancer response to aromatase inhibition. Nature 2012; 486: 353-360
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Fasching PA, Ekici AB, Adamietz BR et al. Breast cancer risk – genes, environment and clinics. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 1056-1066
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2817-2826
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Badve S, Gray RJ, Baehner FL et al. Correlation between the DCIS Score and traditional clinicopathologic features in the prospectively designed E5194 clinical validation study. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 1005
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 McCormick B. RTOG 9804: A prospective randomized trial for “good risk” ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), comparing radiation (RT) to observation (OBS). J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 1004
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Gelmon KA, Boyle F, Kaufman B et al. Open-label phase III randomized controlled trial comparing taxane-based chemotherapy (Tax) with lapatinib (L) or trastuzumab (T) as first-line therapy for women with HER-2+ metastatic breast cancer: Interim analysis (IA) of NCIC CTG MA.31/GSK EGF 108919. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: LBA671
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Blackwell KL, Miles D, Gianni L et al. Primary results from EMILIA, a phase III study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) versus capecitabine (X) and lapatinib (L) in HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with trastuzumab (T) and a taxane. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. LBA1
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Verma S, Miles D, Gianni L et al. Updated overall survival results from EMILIA, a phase 3 study of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) vs. capecitabine and lapatinib in HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2012; 23 (Suppl. 09) ixe5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H, Rezai M et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab for HER2-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 299-309
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Untch M, Loibl S, Bischoff J et al. Lapatinib versus trastuzumab in combination with neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy (GeparQuinto, GBG 44): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 135-144
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H et al. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 633-640
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Robidoux A, Tang G, Rastogi P et al. Evaluation of lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER-2+ operable breast cancer: NSABP protocol B-41. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. LBA506
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Duchnowska R, Dziadziuszko R, Czartoryska-Arlukowicz B et al. Risk factors for brain relapse in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 117: 297-303
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Duchnowska R, Jassem J, Goswami CP et al. 13-gene signature to predict rapid development of brain metastases in patients with HER-2-positive advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 505
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Liedtke C, Wolf MK, Kiesel L. New concepts for targeted systemic therapy in breast cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70: 625-633
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Baselga J, Campone M, Piccart M et al. Everolimus in postmenopausal hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 520-529
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Piccart M, Noguchi S, Pritchard KI et al. Everolimus for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: updated results of the BOLERO-2 phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 559
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Beck J, Rugo HS, Burris HA et al. BOLERO-2: Health-related quality-of-life in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with everolimus and exemestane versus exemestane. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 539
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Pritchard KI, Burris HA, Rugo HS et al. Safety of everolimus for women over 65 years of age with advanced breast cancer (BC): 12.5-mo follow-up of BOLERO-2. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 551
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Gnant M, Baselga J, Rugo HS et al. Effects of everolimus (EVE) on disease progression in bone and bone markers (BM) in patients (pts) with bone metastases (mets). J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 512
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Oliveira M, Navarro A, De Mattos-Arruda L et al. PI3K pathway (PI3Kp) dysregulation and response to pan-PI3K/AKT/mTOR/dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors (PI3Kpi) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients (pts). J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 509
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Loi S, Michiels S, Lambrechts D et al. Tumor PIK3CA mutations, lymphocyte infiltration, and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in early breast cancer (BC): results from the FinHER trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 507
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Ellis MJ, Ding L, Shen D et al. Whole genome sequencing to characterize luminal-type breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 503
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Yates LR, Campbell PJ. Evolution of the cancer genome. Nat Rev Genet 2012; 13: 795-806
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Hartkopf AD, Banys M, Krawczyk N et al. Circulating tumor cells in early-stage breast cancer. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 1067-1072
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Untch M, Gerber B, Mobus V et al. Zurich consensus: statement of German experts on St. Gallen conference 2011 on breast cancer (Zurich 2011). Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 381-390
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Martin M, Lluch A, Ruiz A et al. Randomized phase III study of adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk, node-negative breast cancer (BC) comparing FAC with FAC followed by weekly paclitaxel: First efficacy analysis of the GEICAM/2003-02 trial. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 1001
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Swain SM, Tang G, Geyer CE et al. NSABP B-38: Definitive analysis of a randomized adjuvant trial comparing dose-dense (DD) AC→paclitaxel (P) plus gemcitabine (G) with DD AC→P and with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) in women with operable, node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. LBA1000
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Rugo HS, Barry WT, Moreno-Aspitia A et al. CALGB 40502/NCCTG N063H: randomized phase III trial of weekly paclitaxel (P) compared to weekly nanoparticle albumin bound nab-paclitaxel (NP) or ixabepilone (Ix) with or without bevacizumab (B) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. CRA1002
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Gennari A, Stockler M, Puntoni M et al. Duration of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 2144-2149
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Lux MP, Fasching PA, Loehberg CR et al. Health services research and health economy – quality care training in gynaecology, with focus on gynaecological oncology. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 1046-1055
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Lux MP, Reichelt C, Wallwiener D et al. Zoledronic acid – a cost-effective adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. Results of the Zometa® cost-utility model for the German healthcare system based on the results of the ABCSG-12 study. Onkologie 2010; 33: 360-368
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 LLombarto A, Frassoldati A, Paija O et al. Effect of zoledronic acid on aromatase inhibitor-associated bone loss in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole: E-ZO-FAST 36-month follow up. ASCO Breast Cancer Symposium 2009.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Lux MP, Reichelt C, Wallwiener D et al. Breast cancer: bisphosphonates in the adjuvant – also from a health point of view a useful therapy. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70: 592-595
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Xue M, Fishman P, Botteman M. Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid (ZOL) in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 553
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Hughes LL, Wang M, Page DL et al. Local excision alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5319-5324
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Lück HJ, Lux MP. Aktuelle Empfehlungen zur Therapie primärer und fortgeschrittener Mammakarzinome State of the Art 2012. Brustkrebs: Spezielle Situationen. Kommission Mamma, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie e.V., Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V., Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V.; 2012
  Google Scholar
• 45 Reeder-Hayes KE, Wheeler SB, Biddle AK. Cost-effectiveness of adjuvant radiotherapy for older women with early hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 6096
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Wang Z, Li X, Faria C. Characterization of health care resource utilization and costs in women with metastatic breast cancer in Medicaid. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. e16521
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Refaat T, Choi M, Gaber G et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model assessing the addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel in HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. 1069
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Twelves C, Loesch D, Blum JL et al. A phase III study (EMBRACE) of eribulin mesylate versus treatment of physicianʼs choice in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol 2012; 28 (Suppl.) Abstr. CRA1004^
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Montero AJ, Avancha KKVR, Gluck S et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of eribulin (E) versus treatment of physicianʼs choice (TPC) in patients (pts) with pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC). J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl.) Abstr. e16525
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material