CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,214Breast Cancer Treatment StudiesBreast Lesions and CarcinomasGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

Open access
Cardoso, F., Kyriakides, S., Ohno, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Rubio, I.T., Zackrisson, S., Senkus, E.·2019·Annals of Oncology
DOI 10.1093/annonc/mdz173
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/annonc/mdz173

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 84

  1. McTiernan A. Behavioral risk factors in breast cancer: can risk be modi- fied? Oncologist 2003; 8(4): 326-334.
  2. Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H et al. Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995-2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 2015; 385(9972): 977-1010.
  3. Ottini L, Palli D, Rizzo S et al. Male breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2010; 73(2): 141-155.
  4. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition- summary document. Ann Oncol 2007; 19(4): 614-622.
  5. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D et al. Breast-cancer screening-viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 2015; 372(24): 2353-2358.
  6. Independent UK, Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380(9855): 1778-1786.
  7. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P et al. Systematic review: using mag- netic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148(9): 671-679.
  8. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(8): 1296-1316.
  9. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. WHO Classification of Tumours, Vol. 4, 4th edition. Geneva: IARC Press 2012.
  10. Giuliano AE, Connolly JL, Edge SB et al. Breast cancer-major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 2017; 67(4): 290-303.
  11. Hammond ME. ASCO-CAP guidelines for breast predictive factor test- ing: an update. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2011; 19(6): 499-500.
  12. Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Allison KH et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36(20): 2105-2122.
  13. Duffy MJ, Harbeck N, Nap M et al. Clinical use of biomarkers in breast cancer: updated guidelines from the European Group on Tumor Markers (EGTM). Eur J Cancer 2017; 75: 284-298.
  14. Penault-Llorca F, Radosevic-Robin N. Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology 2017; 49(2): 166-171.
  15. Mann GB, Fahey VD, Feleppa F, Buchanan MR. Reliance on hormone receptor assays of surgical specimens may compromise outcome in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23(22): 5148-5154.
  16. Chen X, Yuan Y, Gu Z, Shen K. Accuracy of estrogen receptor, proges- terone receptor, and HER2 status between core needle and open exci- sion biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 134(3): 957-967.
  17. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(9): 2206-2223.
  18. Dai X, Li T, Bai Z et al. Breast cancer intrinsic subtype classification, clinical use and future trends. Am J Cancer Res 2015; 5(10): 2929-2943.
  19. Wein L, Savas P, Luen SJ et al. Clinical validity and utility of tumor- infiltrating lymphocytes in routine clinical practice for breast cancer patients: current and future directions. Front Oncol 2017; 7: 156.
  20. Loi S, Drubay D, Adams S et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and prognosis: a pooled individual patient analysis of early-stage triple- negative breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 2019; 37(7): 559-569.
  21. Krop I, Ismaila N, Andre F et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(24): 2838-2847.
  22. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Aukema TS et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT as a staging procedure in primary stage II and III breast cancer: com- parison with conventional imaging techniques. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 131(1): 117-126.
  23. Robertson IJ, Hand F, Kell MR. FDG-PET/CT in the staging of local/re- gional metastases in breast cancer. Breast 2011; 20(6): 491-494.
  24. Blamey RW, Pinder SE, Ball GR et al. Reading the prognosis of the indi- vidual with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43(10): 1545-1547.
  25. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(4): 980-991.
  26. Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Azzato EM et al. A population-based validation of the prognostic model PREDICT for early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37(5): 411-417.
  27. Harbeck N, Sotlar K, Wuerstlein R, Doisneau-Sixou S. Molecular and protein markers for clinical decision making in breast cancer: today and tomorrow. Cancer Treat Rev 2014; 40(3): 434-444.
  28. Cardoso F, van't Veer LJ, Bogaerts J et al. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375(8): 717-729.
  29. Nitz U, Gluz O, Christgen M et al. Reducing chemotherapy use in clin- ically high-risk, genomically low-risk pN0 and pN1 early breast cancer patients: five-year data from the prospective, randomised phase 3 West German Study Group (WSG) PlanB trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017; 165(3): 573-583.
  30. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 379(2): 111-121.
  31. Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101(21): 1446-1452.
  32. Wazir U, Mokbel K. Emerging gene-based prognostic tools in early breast cancer: first steps to personalised medicine. World J Clin Oncol 2014; 5(5): 795-799.
  33. Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retel VP et al. A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 2013; 133(4): 929-936.
  34. Hall PS, Smith A, Hulme C et al. Value of information analysis of multi- parameter tests for chemotherapy in early breast cancer: the OPTIMA prelim trial. Value Health 2017; 20(10): 1311-1318.
  35. Petkov VI, Miller DP, Howlader N et al. Breast-cancer-specific mortal- ity in patients treated based on the 21-gene assay: a SEER population- based study. NPJ Breast Cancer 2016; 2: 16017.
  36. Esserman LJ, Yau C, Thompson CK et al. Use of molecular tools to identify patients with indolent breast cancers with ultralow risk over 2 decades. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3(11): 1503-1510.
  37. Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, Hayes DF. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline summary. J Oncol Pract 2016; 12(4): 384-389.
  38. Bossuyt V, Provenzano E, Symmans WF et al. Recommendations for standardized pathological characterization of residual disease for neo- adjuvant clinical trials of breast cancer by the BIG-NABCG collabor- ation. Ann Oncol 2015; 26(7): 1280-1291.
  39. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014; 384(9938): 164-172.
  40. Symmans WF, Peintinger F, Hatzis C et al. Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemother- apy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(28): 4414-4422.
  41. Cardoso F, Cataliotti L, Costa A et al. European Breast Cancer Conference manifesto on breast centres/units. Eur J Cancer 2017; 72: 244-250.
  42. Wilson AR, Marotti L, Bianchi S et al. The requirements of a specialist breast centre. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49(17): 3579-3587.
  43. Senkus E, Gomez H, Dirix L et al. Attitudes of young patients with breast cancer toward fertility loss related to adjuvant systemic therapies. EORTC Study 10002 BIG 3-98. Psychooncology 2014; 23(2): 173-182.
  44. Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(18): 2917-2931.
  45. Paluch-Shimon S, Pagani O, Partridge AH et al. ESO-ESMO 3rd inter- national consensus guidelines for breast cancer in young women (BCY3). Breast 2017; 35: 203-217.
  46. Cardoso F, Loibl S, Pagani O et al. The European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists recommendations for the management of young women with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48(18): 3355-3377.
  47. Albornoz CR, Matros E, Lee CN et al. Bilateral mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery for early-stage breast cancer: the role of breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135(6): 1518-1526.
  48. Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL et al. Survival after lumpec- tomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer 2013; 119(7): 1402-1411.
  49. van Maaren MC, de Munck L, de Bock GH et al. 10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastec- tomy in early breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17(8): 1158-1170.
  50. Lagendijk M, van Maaren MC, Saadatmand S et al. Breast conserving therapy and mastectomy revisited: breast cancer-specific survival and the influence of prognostic factors in 129,692 patients. Int J Cancer 2018; 142(1): 165-175.
  51. Gentilini OD, Cardoso MJ, Poortmans P. Less is more. Breast conserva- tion might be even better than mastectomy in early breast cancer patients. Breast 2017; 35: 32-33.
  52. Schnitt SJ, Moran MS, Houssami N, Morrow M. The Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guide- line on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradi- ation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer: perspectives for pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139(5): 575-577.
  53. Morrow M, Van Zee KJ, Solin LJ et al. Society of Surgical Oncology- American Society for Radiation Oncology-American Society of Clinical Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34(33): 4040-4046.
  54. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early- stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46(18): 3219-3232.
  55. Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE et al. Society of Surgical Oncology- American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32(14): 1507-1515.
  56. De La Cruz L, Moody AM, Tappy EE et al. Overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, and nipple-areolar recurrence in the setting of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2015; 22(10): 3241-3249.
  57. Wei CH, Scott AM, Price AN et al. Psychosocial and sexual well-being following nipple-sparing mastectomy and reconstruction. Breast J 2016; 22(1): 10-17.
  58. Chatterjee JS, Lee A, Anderson W et al. Effect of postoperative radio- therapy on autologous deep inferior epigastric perforator flap volume after immediate breast reconstruction. Br J Surg 2009; 96(10): 1135-1140.
  59. Senkus-Konefka E, Wełnicka-Ja skiewicz M, Ja skiewicz J, Jassem J. Radiotherapy for breast cancer in patients undergoing breast recon- struction or augmentation. Cancer Treat Rev 2004; 30(8): 671-682.
  60. Cardoso MJ, Wyld L, Rubio IT et al. EUSOMA position regarding breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and the use of textured implants. Breast 2019; 44: 90-93.
  61. Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15(12): 1303-1310.
  62. Gebruers N, Verbelen H, De Vrieze T et al. Incidence and time path of lymphedema in sentinel node negative breast cancer patients: a system- atic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96(6): 1131-1139.
  63. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinical- ly node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11(10): 927-933.
  64. Giuliano AE, Hawes D, Ballman KV et al. Association of occult metasta- ses in sentinel lymph nodes and bone marrow with survival among women with early-stage invasive breast cancer. JAMA 2011; 306(4): 385-393.
  65. Lyman GH, Somerfield MR, Bosserman LD et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(5): 561-564.
  66. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S et al. Axillary dissection versus no axil- lary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23-01): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(4): 297-305.
  67. Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with in- vasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 318(10): 918-926.
  68. Jagsi R, Chadha M, Moni J et al. Radiation field design in the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) Trial. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32(32): 3600-3606.
  69. Leidenius M, Salmenkivi K, von Smitten K, Heikkila ¨P. Tumour-posi- tive sentinel node findings in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Surg Oncol 2006; 94(5): 380-384.
  70. Moore KH, Sweeney KJ, Wilson ME et al. Outcomes for women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ and a positive sentinel node: a multi- institutional audit. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14(10): 2911-2917.
  71. Meijnen P, Oldenburg HS, Loo CE et al. Risk of invasion and axillary lymph node metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core- needle biopsy. Br J Surg 2007; 94(8): 952-956.
  72. Yen TW, Hunt KK, Ross MI et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg 2005; 200(4): 516-526.
  73. Hessler LK, Molitoris JK, Rosenblatt PY et al. Factors influencing man- agement and outcome in patients with occult breast cancer with axillary lymph node involvement: analysis of the National Cancer Database. Ann Surg Oncol 2017; 24(10): 2907-2914.
  74. Wu SG, Zhang WW, Sun JY et al. Comparable survival between add- itional radiotherapy and local surgery in occult breast cancer after axil- lary lymph node dissection: a population-based analysis. J Cancer 2017; 8(18): 3849-3855.
  75. Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR et al. Risks of breast, ovar- ian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA 2017; 317(23): 2402-2416.
  76. Heemskerk-Gerritsen BA, Rookus MA, Aalfs CM et al. Improved over- all survival after contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with a history of unilateral breast cancer: a prospect- ive analysis. Int J Cancer 2015; 136(3): 668-677.
  77. El Hage Chehade H, Headon H, El Tokhy O et al. Is sentinel lymph node biopsy a viable alternative to complete axillary dissection follow- ing neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-positive breast cancer at diagnosis? An updated meta-analysis involving 3,398 patients. Am J Surg 2016; 212(5): 969-981.
  78. Galimberti V, Ribeiro Fontana SK, Maisonneuve P et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer: five-year follow-up of patients with clinically node-negative or node-positive disease before treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42(3): 361-368.
  79. Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): a prospective, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14(7): 609-618.
  80. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA et al. Sentinel lymph node sur- gery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) clinical trial. JAMA 2013; 310(14): 1455-1461.
  81. Donker M, Straver ME, Wesseling J et al. Marking axillary lymph nodes with radioactive iodine seeds for axillary staging after neoadjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer patients: the MARI procedure. Ann Surg 2015; 261(2): 378-382.
  82. Caudle AS, Yang WT, Krishnamurthy S et al. Improved axillary evalu- ation following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer using selective evaluation of clipped nodes: implementation of targeted axillary dissection. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34(10): 1072-1078.
  83. Siso C, de Torres J, Esgueva-Colmenarejo A et al. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision of axillary clip in patients with node- positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy (ILINA trial): a new tool to guide the excision of the clipped node after neoadjuvant treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25(3): 784-791.
  84. Darby S, McGale P, Correa C et al. Effect of radiotherapy after breast- conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10, 801 women in 17 randomised trials. Lancet 2011; 378(9804): 1707-1716.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cardoso, F., Kyriakides, S., Ohno, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Rubio, I. T., Zackrisson, S., & Senkus, E.
Affiliations
  • Champalimaud Foundation (PT)
  • The Cancer Institute Hospital (JP)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Université Paris Sciences et Lettres (FR)
  • Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Gdańsk Medical University (PL)
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
1194-1220
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1093/annonc/mdz173
OpenAlex
W4211123279
Cited by
2,214
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 189 · 2025: 260 · 2024: 379 · 2023: 442 · 2022: 368 · 2021: 308 · 2020: 177 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 3
FWCI
74.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2021-02-01)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • ESMO
  • AstraZeneca
  • Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo
  • Eisai
  • Genentech
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme
  • EGIS Pharmaceuticals
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
early breast cancer, breast cancer diagnosis, breast cancer treatment, breast cancer follow-up, breast cancer incidence, mammography screening, breast cancer mortality
MeSH terms
Aftercare, Breast Neoplasms, Europe, European Union, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Oncology, Patient Care Team, Risk Factors, Societies, Medical, Incidence, Breast Neoplasms, Male, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review