A González1, A Lluch2, E Aba3, J Albanell4, A Antón5, I Álvarez6, F Ayala7, A Barnadas8, L Calvo9, E Ciruelos10, J Cortés11, J de la Haba12, J M López-Vega13, E Martínez14, M Muñoz15, I Peláez16, A Redondo17, Á Rodríguez18, C A Rodríguez19, A Ruíz20, A Llombart21. 1. Medical Oncology Department, MD Anderson Cancer Center, C/Arturo Soria, 270, 28033, Madrid, Spain. agonzalezm@seom.org. 2. Hematology and Oncology Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, Spain. 4. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Miguel Servet, Zaragoza, Spain. 6. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Donostia, San Sebastián, Spain. 7. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Morales Meseguer, Murcia, Spain. 8. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. 9. Medical Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de La Coruña, La Coruña, Spain. 10. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. 11. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. 12. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain. 13. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain. 14. Medical Oncology Department, Fundación Hospital Provincial de Castellón, Castellón, Spain. 15. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 16. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital de Cabueñes, Gijón, Spain. 17. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 18. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, Spain. 19. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca-IBSAL, Salamanca, Spain. 20. Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain. 21. Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Arnau Vilanova, Lleida, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To converge on an expert opinion to define aggressive disease in patients with HER2-negative mBC using a modified Delphi methodology. METHODS: A panel of 21 breast cancer experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology agreed upon a survey which comprised 47 questions that were grouped into three sections: relevance for defining aggressive disease, aggressive disease criteria and therapeutic goals. Answers were rated using a 9-point Likert scale of relevance or agreement. RESULTS: Among the 88 oncologists that were invited to participate, 81 answered the first round (92%), 70 answered the second round (80%), and 67 answered the third round (76%) of the survey. There was strong agreement regarding the fact that identifying patients with aggressive disease needs to be adequately addressed to help practitioners to decide the best treatment options for patients with HER2-negative mBC. The factors that were considered to be strongly relevant to classifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC were a high tumor burden, a disease-free interval of less than 12-24 months after surgery, the presence of progressive disease during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and having a triple-negative phenotype. The main therapeutic goals were controlling symptoms, improving quality of life and increasing the time to progression and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: High tumor burden, time to recurrence after prior therapy and having a triple-negative phenotype were the prognostic factors for which the greatest consensus was found for identifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC. Identifying patients with aggressive disease leads to different therapeutic approaches.
PURPOSE: To converge on an expert opinion to define aggressive disease in patients with HER2-negative mBC using a modified Delphi methodology. METHODS: A panel of 21 breast cancer experts from the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology agreed upon a survey which comprised 47 questions that were grouped into three sections: relevance for defining aggressive disease, aggressive disease criteria and therapeutic goals. Answers were rated using a 9-point Likert scale of relevance or agreement. RESULTS: Among the 88 oncologists that were invited to participate, 81 answered the first round (92%), 70 answered the second round (80%), and 67 answered the third round (76%) of the survey. There was strong agreement regarding the fact that identifying patients with aggressive disease needs to be adequately addressed to help practitioners to decide the best treatment options for patients with HER2-negative mBC. The factors that were considered to be strongly relevant to classifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC were a high tumor burden, a disease-free interval of less than 12-24 months after surgery, the presence of progressive disease during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy and having a triple-negative phenotype. The main therapeutic goals were controlling symptoms, improving quality of life and increasing the time to progression and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS:High tumor burden, time to recurrence after prior therapy and having a triple-negative phenotype were the prognostic factors for which the greatest consensus was found for identifying patients with aggressive HER2-negative mBC. Identifying patients with aggressive disease leads to different therapeutic approaches.
Entities:
Keywords:
Aggressive disease; Consensus; HER2-negative; Metastatic breast cancer
Authors: José Baselga; Javier Cortés; Sung-Bae Kim; Seock-Ah Im; Roberto Hegg; Young-Hyuck Im; Laslo Roman; José Luiz Pedrini; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Adam Knott; Emma Clark; Mark C Benyunes; Graham Ross; Sandra M Swain Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: José Baselga; Mario Campone; Martine Piccart; Howard A Burris; Hope S Rugo; Tarek Sahmoud; Shinzaburo Noguchi; Michael Gnant; Kathleen I Pritchard; Fabienne Lebrun; J Thaddeus Beck; Yoshinori Ito; Denise Yardley; Ines Deleu; Alejandra Perez; Thomas Bachelot; Luc Vittori; Zhiying Xu; Pabak Mukhopadhyay; David Lebwohl; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sunil Verma; David Miles; Luca Gianni; Ian E Krop; Manfred Welslau; José Baselga; Mark Pegram; Do-Youn Oh; Véronique Diéras; Ellie Guardino; Liang Fang; Michael W Lu; Steven Olsen; Kim Blackwell Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A C Regierer; R Wolters; M-P Ufen; A Weigel; I Novopashenny; C H Köhne; H Samonigg; J Eucker; K Possinger; M B Wischnewsky Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Dorien J A Lobbezoo; Roel J W van Kampen; Adri C Voogd; M Wouter Dercksen; Franchette van den Berkmortel; Tineke J Smilde; Agnes J van de Wouw; Frank P J Peters; Johanna M G H van Riel; Natascha A J B Peters; Maaike de Boer; George F Borm; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: E de Azambuja; F Cardoso; G de Castro; M Colozza; M S Mano; V Durbecq; C Sotiriou; D Larsimont; M J Piccart-Gebhart; M Paesmans Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-04-24 Impact factor: 7.640