The heterogeneous group of B3 lesions in the breast harbors lesions with different malignant potential and progression risk. As several studies about B3 lesions have been published since the last Consensus in 2018, the 3rd International Consensus Conference discussed the six most relevant B3 lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), classical lobular neoplasia (LN), radial scar (RS), papillary lesions (PL) without atypia, and phyllodes tumors (PT)) and made recommendations for diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Following a presentation of current data of each B3 lesion, the international and interdisciplinary panel of 33 specialists and key opinion leaders voted on the recommendations for further management after core-needle biopsy (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB). In case of B3 lesion diagnosis on CNB, OE was recommended in ADH and PT, whereas in the other B3 lesions, vacuum-assisted excision was considered an equivalent alternative to OE. In ADH, most panelists (76%) recommended an open excision (OE) after diagnosis on VAB, whereas observation after a complete VAB-removal on imaging was accepted by 34%. In LN, the majority of the panel (90%) preferred observation following complete VAB-removal. Results were similar in RS (82%), PL (100%), and FEA (100%). In benign PT, a slim majority (55%) also recommended an observation after a complete VAB-removal. VAB with subsequent active surveillance can replace an open surgical intervention for most B3 lesions (RS, FEA, PL, PT, and LN). Compared to previous recommendations, there is an increasing trend to a de-escalating strategy in classical LN. Due to the higher risk of upgrade into malignancy, OE remains the preferred approach after the diagnosis of ADH.

Evaluation of core needle biopsies (CNB) is a standard procedure for the diagnosis of breast cancer. However, tissue processing and image preparation is a time- consuming procedure and instant on-site availability of high-quality images could substantially improve the efficacy of the diagnostic procedure. Conventional microscopic methods, such as frozen section analysis (FSA) for detection of malignant cells still have clear disadvantages. In the present study, we tested a confocal microscopy scanner on fresh tissue from CNB with intention to develop an alternative device to FSA in clinical practice. In 24 patients with suspicious breast lesions standard of care image-guided biopsies were performed. Confocal images have been obtained using the Histolog™ Scanner and evaluated by two independent pathologists. Hematoxylin-Eosin (H&E) histological sections of the biopsies were routinely processed in a blinded fashion with respect to the confocal images. In total 42 confocal images were generated from 24 biopsy specimens, and available for analysis within a few minutes of taking the biopsy. This resulted in 2 × 42 = 84 pathologic evaluations. In four cases, a pathologic diagnosis was not possible with confocal microscopy. An exact correlation based on the B-classification was reached in 41 out of 80 examinations and in another 35 cases in a broader sense of correspondence definition (i.e. malignant vs. benign). As a reliable on-site method, the Histolog™ Scanner provides a visualization of cellular details equivalent to the H&E standards, permitting rapid and accurate diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Furthermore, this device offers great potential for immediate margin analysis of specimen in breast conserving therapy.

A metastatic state of breast cancer (MBC) affects hundreds of thousands of women worldwide. In hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) MBC, cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 inhibitors can improve the progression-free survival (PFS), as well as the overall survival (OS), in selected patients and have been established as first- and second-line therapies. However, as MBC remains uncurable, resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors occurs and requires alternative treatment approaches. Data on targeted therapy continue to mature, and the number of publications has been constantly rising. This review provides a summary and update on the clinical relevance, patient selection, ongoing trials of CDK4/6 inhibitors, and further targeted therapy options. It focuses on clinical aspects and practicability, as well as adverse events and patient-reported outcomes.

Purpose: When ipsilateral breast-tumor recurrence (IBTR) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) occurs, the cure of a potentially life-threatening disease is the main goal. If, however, this is diagnosed early, prognosis is still good and patient-reported outcomes become more important. Despite the fact that many patients would prefer a further BCS, international breast cancer guidelines still recommend mastectomy, mainly because previous radiation implies limited options. Our comparative study evaluates the long-term quality-of-life and outcome in patients with IBTR who received BCS plus intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) versus mastectomy. Methods: Patients with IBTR were retrospectively divided into three groups according to the local treatment: group 1 (n = 26) was treated with BCS + IORT; group 2 (n = 35) received a standard mastectomy; group 3 (n = 52) had a mastectomy with subsequent reconstruction. Outcomes were analyzed after a mean follow-up of 5 years after IBTR. Quality-of-life was evaluated by the validated questionnaire BREAST-Q in 50 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results: Quality-of-life scores varied within the groups, ranging from 51.4 to 91.3 (out of 100 points). We observed satisfactory scores in all items, with no statistical difference within the groups. Disease-free survival of all groups did not statistically differ, and overall mortality was very low (0.9%). The postinterventional complication rate was lower after BCS (19.2% versus 34.3% after mastectomy and 30.8% after mastectomy with reconstruction). Conclusion: For patients with previous surgery and radiation who demand a second BCS in the recurrent situation, this surgical technique can be offered in combination with IORT. Our long-term results imply oncological safety, lower complication rate, and good patient satisfaction.

Background: Previous data showed that distant metastatic breast cancer (MBC) might be curable in up to 3% of the cases in selected patients, mostly young, with good performance status and with low-volume metastatic disease, mainly by an aggressive multidisciplinary approach including aggressive combination chemotherapy regimens. These long-lasting responses question the belief that MBC is wholly incurable. This study evaluates the rate of long-term survivors and potentially cured patients in an unselected cohort of MBC patients. Methods: We analyzed the data from 342 patients in whom distant MBC was diagnosed from 1990 to 2011. For this study, we defined a metastatic disease survival (MDS) of 9 years as inclusion criterion for long-term survivorship. Results: Eighteen patients (5.3%) were long-term survivors (MDS: 126 months; range, 108–300 months). The rate of long-term survivors was equally distributed over time (1990–1999: 4.3% vs. 2000–2011: 5.9%, p = 0.63). Compared to patients who had a lower MDS, long-term survivors had significantly more often primary MBC (p = 0.005) and hormone receptor-positive carcinomas (p = 0.015). Age at MBC diagnosis, presence of visceral metastases, and limited number of metastatic sites at the time of MBC diagnosis appeared to have no significant impact on long-term survival. Long-term survival was not associated with the use of chemotherapy (50.0% vs. 65.7% in the control group, p = 0.21). Eight patients (2.3%) developed a complete remission and presented with no evidence of disease at the time of last follow-up (MDS: 234.5 months). Conclusion: Since long-term survivors in MBC comprise a relatively heterogeneous group, the factors that lead to the quite rare and felicitous case of long-term survival or even cure can hardly be evaluated systematically. Some patients may be considered cured of their disease. This fraction may be small, but the chance of survival, and even of cure, truly exists. Perhaps we must accept that the factors contributing to long-term survival remain an enigma. It appears, however, that aggressive chemotherapy is not the only key factor to long-term remission.