ABSTRACT
Background: The first International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC1) took place 10 years ago in November 2011. The rationale was - and still is - to standardize treatment of advanced breast cancer (ABC) based on the available evidence and to ensure that worldwide all breast cancer patients receive adequate treatment and access to new therapies. Rationale for the Manuscript: The 6th International Consensus Conference for ABC (ABC6) took place from November 4 to 6, 2021 and was the first in a purely online format, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the present manuscript, a working group of German breast cancer experts comments on the voting results of the ABC6 panelists regarding their applicability for routine clinical practice in Germany. Method: The ABC6 votes mainly include modified or new statements. With regard to all statements not modified for the ABC6 consensus, the German experts refer to the published paper of the ABC5 consensus. The German experts base their comments on the current recommendations of the Breast Committee of the Gynecological Oncology Working Group (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie, AGO Mamma). Topics: ABC6 focused on new treatment options and their implications for clinical practice. Optimal therapy sequencing for example was one of the issues. To solve the challenge of a more individualized treatment, precision medicine is fundamental. Oligometastatic disease, brain metastases and adequate supportive and palliative care were also addressed. Of special interest was the treatment of inoperable locally advanced breast cancer, which was discussed as a separate topic. As in previous years, patient advocates from around the world were an integral part of the ABC6 conference and had a major input into the consensus.
ABSTRACT
Despite the COVID 19 pandemic and mostly virtual congresses, innovation in the treatment of breast cancer patients continues at an unabated pace. This review summarises the current developments. Initial overall survival data for CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as the first advanced line of therapy in treatment-naive postmenopausal patients have been published. Similarly, a trial comparing trastuzumab-deruxtecan versus trastuzumab-emtansine revealed a clear benefit regarding progression-free survival. Understanding of biomarkers making checkpoint inhibitor therapy particularly effective is increasing, and new compounds such as oral selective estrogen receptor destabilisers (SERDs) are entering clinical development and completing the first phase III trials.
ABSTRACT
Despite the COVID 19 pandemic and mostly virtual congresses, innovation in the treatment of breast cancer patients continues at an unabated pace. This review summarises the current developments. Initial overall survival data for CDK4/6 inhibitor treatment in combination with an aromatase inhibitor as the first advanced line of therapy in treatment-naive postmenopausal patients have been published. Similarly, a trial comparing trastuzumab-deruxtecan versus trastuzumab-emtansine revealed a clear benefit regarding progression-free survival. Understanding of biomarkers making checkpoint inhibitor therapy particularly effective is increasing, and new compounds such as oral selective estrogen receptor destabilisers (SERDs) are entering clinical development and completing the first phase III trials.
ABSTRACT
This review summarises not only the latest evidence on prevention, but also the current research on the treatment of early-stage breast cancer patients. Recent years have seen a growing body of evidence on the risk of high- and moderate-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility genes. A large international consortium has now been able to further refine the answer to the question of the significance of the so-called panel genes. Moreover, the data on treatment selection regarding endocrine efficacy and the decision for or against chemotherapy have also been advanced markedly. There is also new data on adjuvant CDK4/6 (cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6) inhibitors, which are standard in first-line treatment in patients with metastatic HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. For other therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, which have successfully improved the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in neoadjuvant treatment settings for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), there is a growing understanding of the quality of life and side effects. This is especially important in situations where patients could possibly be cured without such a regimen.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 appeared in late 2019, causing a pandemic spread. This led to a reorganisation of oncology care in order to reduce the risk of spreading infection between patients and healthcare staff. Here we analysed measures taken in major oncological units in Europe and the USA. METHODS: A 46-item survey was sent by email to representatives of 30 oncological centres in 12 of the most affected countries. The survey inquired about preventive measures established to reduce virus spread, patient education and processes employed for risk reduction in each oncological unit. RESULTS: Investigators from 21 centres in 10 countries answered the survey between 10 April and 6 May 2020. A triage for patients with cancer before hospital or clinic visits was conducted by 90.5% of centres before consultations, 95.2% before day care admissions and in 100% of the cases before overnight hospitalisation by means of phone calls, interactive online platforms, swab test and/or chest CT scan. Permission for caregivers to attend clinic visits was limited in many centres, with some exceptions (ie, for non-autonomous patients, in the case of a new diagnosis, when bad news was expected and for terminally ill patients). With a variable delay period, the use of personal protective equipment was unanimously mandatory, and in many centres, only targeted clinical and instrumental examinations were performed. Telemedicine was implemented in 76.2% of the centres. Separated pathways for COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative patients were organised, with separate inpatient units and day care areas. Self-isolation was required for COVID-19-positive or symptomatic staff, while return to work policies required a negative swab test in 76.2% of the centres. CONCLUSION: Many pragmatic measures have been quickly implemented to deal with the health emergency linked to COVID-19, although the relative efficacy of each intervention should be further analysed in large observational studies.