In the last two decades, surgical methods for axillary staging in breast cancer patients have become less extensive, and full axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is confined to selected patients. In initially node-positive patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, however, the optimal management remains unclear. Current guidelines vary widely, endorsing different strategies. We performed a literature review on axillary staging strategies and their place in international recommendations. This overview defines knowledge gaps associated with specific procedures, summarizes currently ongoing clinical trials that address these unsolved issues, and provides the rationale for further research. While some guidelines have already implemented surgical de-escalation, replacing ALND with, e.g., sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or targeted axillary dissection (TAD) in cN+ patients converting to clinical node negativity, others recommend ALND. Numerous techniques are in use for tagging lymph node metastasis, but many questions regarding the marking technique, i.e., the optimal time for marker placement and the number of marked nodes, remain unanswered. The optimal number of SLNs to be excised also remains a matter of debate. Data on oncological safety and quality of life following different staging procedures are lacking. These results provide the rationale for the multinational prospective cohort study AXSANA initiated by EUBREAST, which started enrollment in June 2020 and aims at recruiting 3000 patients in 20 countries (NCT04373655; Funded by AGO-B, Claudia von Schilling Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, AWOgyn, EndoMag, Mammotome, and MeritMedical).

Over the last decades numerous initiatives have been set up that aim at translating the best available medical knowledge and treatment into clinical practice. The inherent complexity of the programs and discrepancies in the terminology used make it difficult to appreciate each of them distinctly and compare their specific strengths and weaknesses. To allow comparison and stimulate dialogue between different programs, we in this paper provide an overview of the German Cancer Society certification program for multidisciplinary cancer centers that was established in 2003. In the early 2000s the German Cancer Society assessed the available information on quality of cancer care in Germany and concluded that there was a definite need for a comprehensive, transparent and evidence-based system of quality assessment and control. This prompted the development and implementation of a voluntary cancer center certification program that was promoted by scientific societies, health-care providers, and patient advocacy groups and based on guidelines of the highest quality level (S3). The certification system structures the entire process of care from prevention to screening and multidisciplinary treatment of cancer and places multidisciplinary teams at the heart of this program. Within each network of providers, the quality of care is documented using tumor-specific quality indicators. The system started with breast cancer centers in 2003 and colorectal cancer centers in 2006. In 2017, certification systems are established for the majority of cancers. Here we describe the rationale behind the certification program, its history, the development of the certification requirements, the process of data collection, and the certification process as an example for the successful implementation of a voluntary but powerful system to ensure and improve quality of cancer care. Since 2003, over 1 million patients had their primary tumors treated in a certified center. There are now over 1200 sites for different tumor entities in four countries that have been certified in accordance with the program and transparently report their results from multidisciplinary treatment for a substantial proportion of cancers. This led to a fundamental change in the structure of cancer care in Germany and neighboring countries within one decade.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel chemotherapy frequently induces dose-limiting sensory axonal polyneuropathy. Given that sensory symptoms are challenging to assess objectively in clinical practice, an easily accessible biomarker for chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy (CIPN) holds the potential to improve early diagnosis. Here, we describe neurofilament light chain (NFL), a marker for neuroaxonal damage, as a translational surrogate marker for CIPN. METHODS: NFL concentrations were measured in an in vitro model of CIPN, exposing induced pluripotent stem cell–derived sensory neurons (iPSC-DSNs) to paclitaxel. Patients with breast or ovarian cancer undergoing paclitaxel chemotherapy, breast cancer control patients without chemotherapy, and healthy controls were recruited in a cohort study and examined before chemotherapy (V1) and after 28 weeks (V2, after chemotherapy). CIPN was assessed by the validated Total Neuropathy Score reduced (TNSr), which combines patient-reported symptoms with data from clinical examinations. Serum NFL (NFL _s ) concentrations were measured at both visits with single-molecule array technology. RESULTS: NFL was released from iPSC-DSNs upon paclitaxel incubation in a dose- and time-dependent manner and was inversely correlated with iPSC-DSN viability. NFL _s strongly increased in paclitaxel-treated patients with CIPN, but not in patients receiving chemotherapy without CIPN or controls, resulting in an 86% sensitivity and 87% specificity. An NFL _s increase of +36 pg/mL from baseline was associated with a predicted CIPN probability of more than 0.5. CONCLUSION: NFL _s was correlated with CIPN development and severity, which may guide neurotoxic chemotherapy in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753036. FUNDING: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (EXC 257 NeuroCure), BMBF (Center for Stroke Research Berlin, 01 EO 0801), Animalfree Research, EU Horizon 2020 Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking (TransBioLine, 821283), Charité 3R — Replace — Reduce — Refine.

For almost 20 years, the Breast Committee of the German Gynecological Oncology Group (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie, AGO) has been preparing and updating evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with early and metastatic breast cancer. The AGO Breast Committee consists of gynecological oncologists specialized in breast cancer and interdisciplinary members specialized in pathology, radiological diagnostics, medical oncology, and radiation oncology. This update has been performed according to a documented rule-fixed algorithm, by thoroughly reviewing and scoring chapter by chapter the recent publications for their scientific validity (Oxford level of evidence (LoE) [1] and clinical relevance (AGO grade of recommendation [GR]; Table 1). We present the 2019 update; the full version of the updated slide set is available online as a PDF file in both English and German [2].

Introduction: The AGO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie, German Gynecological Oncology Group) Task Force on Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer as an interdisciplinary team consists of specialists from gynecological oncology, pathology, diagnostic radiology, medical oncology, and radiation oncology with a special focus on breast cancer. Methods: The updated evidence-based treatment recommendation 2022 for early breast cancer (EBC) and metastatic breast cancer of the AGO Task Force has been released. Results and Conclusion: This paper captures the update of EBC.

The phenotypes of tumor cells change during disease progression, but invasive rebiopsies of metastatic lesions are not always feasible. Here we aimed to determine whether initially HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with HER2-positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs) benefit from a HER2-targeted therapy. The open-label, interventional randomized phase III clinical trial (EudraCT Number 2010-024238-46, CliniclTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01619111) recruited from March 2012 until September 2019 with a follow-up duration of 19.5 months. It was a multicenter clinical trial with 94 participating German study centers. A total of 2137 patients with HER2-negative MBC were screened for HER2-positive CTCs with a final modified intention-to-treat population of 101 patients. Eligible patients were randomized to standard therapy with or without lapatinib. Primary study endpoints included CTC clearance (no CTCs at the end of treatment) and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety. In both treatment arms CTC clearance at first follow-up visit—although not being significantly different for both arms at any time point—was significantly associated with improved OS (42.4 vs 14.1 months; P = 0.002). Patients treated additionally with lapatinib had a significantly improved OS over patients receiving standard treatment (20.5 vs 9.1 months, P = 0.009). DETECT III is the first clinical study indicating that phenotyping of CTCs might have clinical utility for stratification of MBC cancer patients to HER2-targeting therapies. The OS benefit could be related to lapatinib, but further studies are required to prove this clinical observation. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT01619111.