Breast Cancer 2012 – New Aspects

 

 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, however potentially promising combinations do not always achieve 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 inherited genetic properties of the patient into consideration. Current therapeutic decision-making is thus based on a combination of classical clinical and modern molecular biomarkers. Also health-economic aspects are more frequently being taken into consideration so that health-economic considerations may also play a part. This review is based on information from the recent annual congresses. The latest of these are the 34th San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2011 and the ASCO Annual Meeting 2012. Among their highlights are the clinically significant results from the CLEOPATRA, BOLERO-2, EMILIA and SWOG S0226 trials on the therapy for metastatic breast cancer as well as further state-of-the-art data on the adjuvant use of bisphosphonates within the framework of the ABCSG-12, ZO-FAST, NSABP-B34 and GAIN trials.

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. Dieser Übersichtsartikel baut auf den aktuellen Kongressen auf, die jedes Jahr stattfinden. Die letzten berücksichtigten sind hierbei das 34. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium und das ASCO Annual Meeting 2012. Zu deren Highlights zählten die klinisch bedeutsamen Ergebnisse der Studien CLEOPATRA, BOLERO-2, EMILIA und SWOG S0226 zur Therapie des metastasierten Mammakarzinoms sowie weitere aktuelle Daten zum adjuvanten Einsatz der Bisphosphonate im Rahmen der Studien ABCSG-12, ZO-FAST, NSABP-B34 und GAIN.

• References

• 1 Fasching PA, Fehm T, Janni W et al. Breast cancer therapy – a state of the art review. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2010; 70: 875-886 DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1250437.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Kummel S, Kolberg HC, Luftner D et al. Breast cancer 2011 – new aspects. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2011; 71: 939-953 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1280313.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1233-1241 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1227-1232 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa020989.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Bani HA, Fasching PA, Lux MM et al. Lymphedema in breast cancer survivors: assessment and information provision in a specialized breast unit. Patient education and counseling 2007; 66: 311-318 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.01.004.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 546-553 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa012782.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Kühn T. Mammakarzinom. Stellenwert des axillären Stagings. Gynäkologe 2011; 44: 999-1004
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S et al. Update of International Breast Cancer Study Group trial 23-01 to compare axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with clinically node negative breast cancer and micrometastases in the sentinel node. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 102s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Moebus V, Jackisch C, Lueck HJ et al. Intense dose-dense sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide compared with conventionally scheduled chemotherapy in high-risk primary breast cancer: mature results of an AGO phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2874-2880 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.7643.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Engel J, Lebeau A, Sauer H et al. Are we wasting our time with the sentinel technique? Fifteen reasons to stop axilla dissection. Breast 2006; 15: 452-455 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2005.05.009.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV et al. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2011; 305: 569-575 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2011.90.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 927-933 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70207-2.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie e.V.. AGO Guidelines. http://www.ago-online.org last access: 2012
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Veronesi U, Orecchia R, Luini A et al. Intraoperative radiotherapy during breast conserving surgery: a study on 1,822 cases treated with electrons. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 124: 141-151 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1115-5.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Vaidya JS, Baum M, Tobias JS et al. Long-term results of targeted intraoperative radiotherapy (Targit) boost during breast-conserving surgery. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol, Phys 2011; 81: 1091-1097 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.07.1996.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Smith GL, Xu Y, Buchholz TA et al. Partial breast brachytherapy is associated with inferior effectiveness and increased toxicity compared with whole breast irradiation in older patients. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 99s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Cutuli B, Cohen-Solal-le Nir C, de Lafontan B et al. Breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the French Cancer Centersʼ experience. Int J Radiat Oncol, Biol, Phys 2002; 53: 868-879
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005; 366: 2087-2106 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67887-7.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Bijker N, Meijnen P, Peterse JL et al. Breast-conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ: ten-year results of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer randomized phase III trial 10853 – a study by the EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 3381-3387 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.1366.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 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 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.21.8560.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Solin LJ, Gray R, Baehner FL et al. A quantitative multigene RT-PCR assay for predicting recurrence risk after surgical excision alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a prospective validation study of the DCIS score from ECOG E5194. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 108s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Untch M, von Minckwitz G. Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Breast Care (Basel) 2011; 6: 417 DOI: 10.1159/000335444.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 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 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111065.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 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 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70397-7.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE et al. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 3351-3357 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4930.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Nuesch E et al. Impact of treatment characteristics on response of different breast cancer phenotypes: pooled analysis of the German neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Breast cancer research and treatment 2011; 125: 145-156 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1228-x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2012; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Gianni L, Bianchini G, Kiermaier A et al. Neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab: biomarker analyses of a 4-arm randomized phase II study (NeoSphere) in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 109s-110s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 25-32 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70336-9.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Schneeweiss A, Chia S, Hickish T et al. Neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab concurrent or sequential with an anthracycline-containing or concurrent with an anthracycline-free standard regimen: A randomized phase II study (TRYPHAENA). Cancer Res 2011; 71: 112s-113s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Haeberle L et al. Ki67, chemotherapy response, and prognosis in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment. BMC cancer 2011; 11: 486 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-486.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR et al. Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1275-1281 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4147.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU et al. pCR as a surrogate in HER2-positive patients treated with trastuzumab. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 111s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Cheang MCU, Prat A, Fan C et al. PAM50 HER2-enriched subtype enriches for tumor response to neoadjuvant anthracyclines/taxane and trastuzumab/taxane containing regimens in HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 110s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 von Minckwitz G, Kümmel S, Vogel P et al. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine–capecitabine versus docetaxel–doxorubicin–cyclophosphamide in early nonresponsive breast cancer: phase III randomized GeparTrio trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 542-551
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al. Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1736-1747 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdr304.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H, Loibl S et al. Integrating bevacizumab, everolimus, and lapatinib into current neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen for primary breast cancer. Safety results of the GeparQuinto trial. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 301-306 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq350.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Huober J, Hanusch C, Fasching PA et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of paclitaxel with or without Rad001: results of the non-responder part of the GEPARQUINTO study (GBG 44). Cancer Res 2011; 71: 105s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W et al. Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 679-691 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0806285.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Luschin-Ebengreuth G et al. Long-term follow-up in ABCSG-12: significantly improved overall survival with adjuvant zoledronic acid in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-receptor-positive early breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 95s-96s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 de Boer R, Bundred N, Eidtmann H et al. Long-term survival outcomes among postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving adjuvant letrozole and zoledronic acid: 5-year follow-up of ZO-FAST. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 96s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Coleman RE, Marshall H, Cameron D et al. Breast-cancer adjuvant therapy with zoledronic acid. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1396-1405 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1105195.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Diel IJ, Jaschke A, Solomayer EF et al. Adjuvant oral clodronate improves the overall survival of primary breast cancer patients with micrometastases to the bone marrow: a long-term follow-up. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 2007-2011 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn429.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Powles T, Paterson S, Kanis JA et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of clodronate in patients with primary operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3219-3224
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 Paterson AHG, Anderson SJ, Lembersky BC et al. NSABP protocol B-34: a clinical trial comparing adjuvant clodronate vs. placebo in early stage breast cancer patients receiving systemic chemotherapy and/or tamoxifen or no therapy – final analysis. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 100s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 46 Moebus V, Thomssen C, Harbeck N et al. Gain (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node Positive) study: a phase-III multicenter trial to compare dose dense, dose intense ETC (iddETC) vs. EC-TX and Ibandronate vs. observation in patients with node-positive primary breast cancer – 1st interim efficacy analysis. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 6s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Janni WJ, Harbeck N, Sommer H et al. Sequential treatment with epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, followed by docetaxel vs. FEC120 in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer patients with extensive lymph node involvement: final survival analysis of the German ADEBAR phase III study. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 140s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE et al. PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel ± darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer – results at the time of surgery. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1988-1998 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq709.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Untch M, von Minckwitz G, Konecny GE et al. PREPARE trial: a randomized phase III trial comparing preoperative, dose-dense, dose-intensified chemotherapy with epirubicin, paclitaxel, and CMF versus a standard-dosed epirubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel with or without darbepoetin alfa in primary breast cancer – outcome on prognosis. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1999-2006 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq713.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 Nitz U, Gluz O, Oberhoff C et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without darbepoetin alpha in node-positive breast cancer: survival and quality of life analysis from the prospective randomized WSG ARA plus trial. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 143s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 Goss P, Smith I, OʼShaugnessy J et al. Results of a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study of adjuvant lapatinib in women with early-stage ErbB2-overexpressing breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 109s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 52 Baselga J, Cortes J, Kim SB et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 109-119 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113216.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 Saura C, Garcia-Saenz JA, Xu B et al. Safety and efficacy of neratinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with ErbB2-positive breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 225s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 Gianni L, Romieu G, Lichinitser M et al. First results of AVEREL, a randomized phase III trial to evaluate bevacizumab (BEV) in combination with trastuzumab (H) + docetaxel (DOC) as first-line therapy for HER2-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). Cancer Res 2011; 71: 109s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 55 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 512)
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Xu B, Guan ZZ, Shen ZZ et al. Association of PTEN loss and PIK3CA mutations on outcome in HER2+ metastatic breast cancer patients treated with first-line lapatinib plus paclitaxel or paclitaxel alone. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 103s-104s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Colleoni M, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM et al. Analyses adjusting for selective crossover show improved overall survival with adjuvant letrozole compared with tamoxifen in the BIG 1-98 study. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 1117-1124 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6455.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 58 Paridaens RJ, Dirix LY, Beex LV et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. Phase III study comparing exemestane with tamoxifen as first-line hormonal treatment of metastatic breast cancer in postmenopausal women. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 4883-4890 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.4659.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 59 Mouridsen H, Gershanovich M, Sun Y et al. Phase III study of letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: analysis of survival and update of efficacy from the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 2101-2109 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.194.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 60 Nabholtz JM, Bonneterre J, Buzdar A et al. Anastrozole (Arimidex) versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy for advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women: survival analysis and updated safety results. Eur J Cancer 2003; 39: 1684-1689
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 61 Bergh J, Jonsson PE, Lidbrink EK et al. FACT: an open-label randomized phase III study of fulvestrant and anastrozole in combination compared with anastrozole alone as first-line therapy for patients with receptor-positive postmenopausal breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012; DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.1095.
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 62 Mehta RS, Barlow WE, Albain KS et al. A Phase III randomized trial of anastrozole versus anastrozole and fulvestrant as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer: SWOG S0226. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 95s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 63 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 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1109653.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 64 Piccart-Gebhart MJ, 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
• 65 Statistisches Bundesamt. Gesundheit – Ausgaben (Lange Reihe) – Fachserie 12, Reihe 7.1.2 – 1995 bis 2012. Erschienen am 05.04.2012. Artikelnummer: 2120712107004
  Google Scholar
• 66 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 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1280435.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 67 Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y et al. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010–2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 117-128 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq495.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 68 Chereau E, Vataire AL, Laas E et al. Economic analysis of chemotherapy costs for adjuvant therapy in breast cancer in France. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 214s-215s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 69 Baffert S, Cottu PH, Kirova Y et al. Burden of brain metastases in HER2-positive breast cancer: healthcare use and costs from a French observational retrospective multicenter study. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 212s-213s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 70 Reed SD, Li Y, Anstrom KJ et al. Cost effectiveness of ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2185-2191
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 71 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary. Updated national health expenditure projections 2009–2019. https://www.cmsgov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2009pdf last access: September 2011
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 72 Hershman DL, Neugut AI, Richards CA et al. Influence of hospital factors, physician factors and type of health insurance on receipt of immediate postmastectomy reconstruction in young women with breast cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 114s-115s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 73 Neumann PJ, Palmer JA, Nadler E et al. Cancer therapy costs influence treatment: a national survey of oncologists. Health Affairs 2010; 29: 196-202
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 74 Lacey L, Chien R, Hornberger J. Cost-utility of the 21-gene breast cancer assay (Oncotype DX®) in the Irish healthcare setting. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 213s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 75 Pronzato P, Plun-Favreau J. Is the 21-gene breast cancer test (Oncotype DX®) cost-effective?. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 213s-214s
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 76 Warren JL, Yabroff KR, Meekins A et al. Evaluation of trends in the cost of initial cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 888-897
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 77 von Minckwitz G, Blohmer JU, Costa SD et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy adapted by interim response improves overall survival of primary breast cancer patients – results of the GeparTrio trial. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 103s
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material