| Literature DB >> 36186150 |
Michael Untch1, Peter A Fasching2, Renate Haidinger3, Nadia Harbeck4, Christian Jackisch5, Diana Lüftner6, Volkmar Müller7, Eva Schumacher-Wulf8, Rachel Würstlein9, Christoph Thomssen10.
Abstract
Over the past few years, there have been many developments in the treatment of advanced breast cancer; these have been incorporated into national and international treatment guidelines, resulting in an improved prognosis for these patients. The 6th International Consensus Conference for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC6) was held in November 2021. The aim is to standardize the treatment of advanced breast cancer based on a high level of evidence, and to make new treatment options accessible to all patients. In this article we discuss the ABC6 consensus in the context of German treatment guidelines, and compare it with clinical practice in Germany. The authors refer to the current recommendations of the Breast Cancer Working Group for Gynecological Oncology (AGO Mamma) published in March 2022. The AGO Breast Cancer Guidelines are updated annually. Since discrepancies between national and international guidelines can occur due to country-specific regulations, this is a useful comparison to make. The German authors refer to the voting results of the ABC6 panelists from 6 November 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).Entities:
Keywords: advanced breast cancer; brain metastases; oligometastasis; supportive treatment; systemic therapy; treatment sequencing
Year: 2022 PMID: 36186150 PMCID: PMC9525147 DOI: 10.1055/a-1904-6100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd ISSN: 0016-5751 Impact factor: 2.754
Table 1 Level of Evidence Grading System for the ABC consensus 3 .
|
| |
| I | Evidence from at least one large-scale, randomized controlled trial of high methodological quality (low potential for bias), or a meta-analysis of homogeneous randomized studies that have been completed and validated. |
| II | Small-scale randomized studies or large-scale randomized studies in which bias cannot be excluded (low level of methodological quality), or a meta-analysis based on such studies or based on a heterogenous collection of studies |
| III | Prospective cohort studies |
| IV | Retrospective cohort studies or case control studies |
| V | Studies with no control group, case reports, expert opinions |
|
| |
| A | Strong evidence of efficacy with substantial clinical benefit, strongly recommended |
| B | Strong to medium evidence of efficacy but only limited clinical benefit, generally recommended |
| C | Insufficient evidence of efficacy, or else the therapeutic benefit does not outweigh the risks or disadvantages (side effects, costs, etc.), recommended as optional |
| D | Moderate evidence against efficacy or for a poor outcome, not generally recommended |
| E | Moderate evidence against efficacy or for a poor outcome, not recommended at all |
Tab. 1 Level of Evidence Grading System für den ABC-Konsensus 3 .
|
| |
| I | Evidenz aus mindestens einer großen randomisierten, kontrollierten Studie von hoher methodischer Qualität (niedriges Potenzial für Bias) oder einer Metaanalyse mit validiert durchgeführten randomisierten Studien ohne Heterogenität. |
| II | kleine randomisierte Studien oder große randomisierte Studien mit nicht auszuschließendem Bias (geringere methodische Qualität) oder Metaanalyse basierend auf solchen Studien bzw. basierend auf heterogenen Studien |
| III | prospektive Kohortenstudien |
| IV | retrospektive Kohortenstudien oder Fallkontrollstudien |
| V | Studien ohne Kontrollgruppe, Fallberichte, Expertenmeinungen |
|
| |
| A | hohe Evidenz für eine Wirksamkeit mit substanziellem klinischen Benefit, starke Empfehlung |
| B | hohe oder mittlere Evidenz für eine Wirksamkeit, aber nur limitiertem klinischen Benefit, allgemeine Empfehlung |
| C | ungenügende Evidenz für eine Wirksamkeit bzw. der Therapievorteil überwiegt nicht die Risiken oder Nachteile (Nebenwirkungen, Kosten …), optionale Empfehlung |
| D | mittlere Evidenz gegen eine Wirksamkeit oder für ein schlechteres Outcome, keine grundsätzliche Empfehlung |
| E | hohe Evidenz gegen eine Wirksamkeit oder für ein schlechteres Outcome, keinesfalls zu empfehlen |