Background: Tumour size in breast cancer influences therapeutic decisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sizing of primary breast cancer using mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and thereby establish which imaging method most accurately corresponds with the size of the histological result. Methods: Data from 121 patients with primary breast cancer were analysed in a retrospective study. The results were divided into the groups “ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)”, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) + ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)”, “invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)”, “invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC)” and “other tumours” (tubular, medullary, mucinous and papillary breast cancer). The largest tumour diameter was chosen as the sizing reference in each case. Bland-Altman analysis was used to determine to what extent the imaging tumour size correlated with the histopathological tumour sizes. Results: Tumour size was found to be significantly underestimated with sonography, especially for the tumour groups IDC + DCIS, IDC and ILC. The greatest difference between sonographic sizing and actual histological tumour size was found with invasive lobular breast cancer. There was no significant difference between mammographic and histological sizing. MRI overestimated non-significantly the tumour size and is superior to the other imaging techniques in sizing of IDC + DCIS and ILC. Conclusions: The histological subtype should be included in imaging interpretation for planning surgery in order to estimate the histological tumour size as accurately as possible.

Background: As the available information about breast cancer is growing every day, the decision-making process for the therapy is getting more complex. ChatGPT as a transformer-based language model possesses the ability to write scientific articles and pass medical exams. But is it able to support the multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) in the planning of the therapy of patients with breast cancer? Material and Methods: We performed a pilot study on 10 consecutive cases of breast cancer patients discussed in MDT at our department in January 2023. Included were patients with a primary diagnosis of early breast cancer. The recommendation of MDT was compared with the recommendation of the ChatGPT for particular patients and the clinical score of the agreement was calculated. Results: Results showed that ChatGPT provided mostly general answers regarding chemotherapy, breast surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and antibody therapy. It was able to identify risk factors for hereditary breast cancer and point out the elderly patient indicated for chemotherapy to evaluate the cost/benefit effect. ChatGPT wrongly identified the patient with Her2 1 + and 2 + (FISH negative) as in need of therapy with an antibody and called endocrine therapy “hormonal treatment”. Conclusions: Support of artificial intelligence by finding individualized and personalized therapy for our patients in the time of rapidly expanding amount of information is looking for the ways in the clinical routine. ChatGPT has the potential to find its spot in clinical medicine, but the current version is not able to provide specific recommendations for the therapy of patients with primary breast cancer.

Background: Endocrine treatment is one of the most effective therapies for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. However, most tumors will develop resistance to endocrine therapy as the cancer progresses. This review focuses on the mechanisms and markers of endocrine-resistant breast cancer. In addition, current and future strategies to overcome endocrine resistance are discussed. Summary: Several molecular mechanisms of endocrine resistance have been identified, including alterations in the ESR1 gene or in the PIK3CA/mTOR pathway. Meanwhile, CDK4/6, mTOR, and PI3K inhibition have shown to improve the efficacy of endocrine treatment and new promising approaches are being developed. Key Message: Overcoming primary or acquired resistance to endocrine treatment remains a major challenge. Since the molecular mechanisms of endocrine resistance are manifold, optimal combination and sequencing strategies will have to be developed in the future.

PURPOSE: Among patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC), the frequency of germline mutations in cancer susceptibility genes and the clinical relevance of these mutations are unclear. In this study, a prospective cohort of patients with mBC was used to determine mutation rates for breast cancer (BC) predisposition genes, to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with mutations, and to assess the influence of mutations on patient outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Germline DNA from 2,595 patients with mBC enrolled in the prospective PRAEGNANT registry was evaluated for mutations in cancer predisposition genes. The frequencies of mutations in known BC predisposition genes were compared with results from a prospective registry of patients with nonmetastatic BC sequenced using the same QIAseq method and with public reference controls. Associations between mutation status and tumor characteristics, progression-free survival, and overall survival were assessed. RESULTS: Germline mutations in 12 established BC predisposition genes (including BRCA1 and BRCA2) were detected in 271 (10.4%) patients. A mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 was seen in 129 patients (5.0%). BRCA1 mutation carriers had a higher proportion of brain metastasis (27.1%) compared with nonmutation carriers (12.8%). Mutations were significantly enriched in PRAEGNANT patients with mBC compared with patients with nonmetastatic BC (10.4% v 6.6%, P < .01). Mutations did not significantly modify progression-free survival or overall survival for patients with mBC. CONCLUSION: Multigene panel testing may be considered in all patients with mBC because of the high frequency of germline mutations in BRCA1/2 and other BC predisposition genes. Although the prognosis of mutation carriers and nonmutation carriers with mBC was similar, differences observed in tumor characteristics have implications for treatment and for future studies of targeted therapies.

In metastatic breast cancer (MBC), antigen profiles of metastatic tissue and primary tumor differ in up to 20 % of patients. Reassessment of predictive markers, including human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression, might help to optimize MBC treatment. While tissue sampling is invasive and often difficult to repeat, circulating tumor cell (CTC) analysis requires only a blood sample and might provide an easy-to-repeat, real-time “liquid biopsy” approach. The present retrospective study was conducted to compare HER2 expression in primary tumors, metastatic tissue, and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) from MBC patients and to analyze the potential impact of HER2 overexpression by CTCs on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in MBC. CTC-positive (five or more CTCs/7.5 mL blood; CellSearch®, Janssen Diagnostics) MBC patients starting a new line of systemic treatment were eligible for the study. HER2 status of CTCs was determined by immunofluorescence (CellSearch®). HER2 status of primary (PRIM) and metastatic (MET) tumor tissue was determined by immunohistochemistry. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Kaplan–Meier plots. One hundred seven patients (median age (range) 57 (33–81) years) were included. 100/107 (93 %) patients were followed-up for a median [95 % confidence interval (CI)] of 28.5 [25.1–40.1] months. Of 37/107 (35 %) CTC-HER2-positive patients only 10 (27 %) were PRIM-HER2-positive. 6/46 (13 %) patients were MET-HER2-positive; only 2/10 (20 %) CTC-HER2-positive patients were MET-HER2-positive. Overall accuracy between CTC-HER2 expression and PRIM-HER2 and MET-HER2 status was 69 % and 74 %, respectively. Kaplan–Meier plots of PFS and OS by CTC-HER2 status revealed significantly longer median [95 % CI] PFS of CTC-HER2-positive versus CTC-HER2-negative patients (7.4 [4.7–13.7] versus 4.34 [3.5–5.9] months; p = 0.035). CTC-HER2-positive status showed no significant difference for OS (13.7 [7.7–30.0] versus 8.7 [5.9–15.3] months; p = 0.287). HER2 status can change during the course of breast cancer. CTC phenotyping may serve as an easy-to-perform “liquid biopsy” to reevaluate HER2 status and potentially guide treatment decisions. Further, prospective studies are needed.