Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Breast Diseases HELP
Based on 100,000 articles published since 2010
|||| 67 

These are the 100000 published articles about Breast Diseases that originated from Worldwide during 2010-2020.
 
+ Citations + Abstracts
Pages: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20
1 Guideline Risk Assessment, Genetic Counseling, and Genetic Testing for BRCA-Related Cancer: Recommendation Statement. 2020

Anonymous26511193. · ·Am Fam Physician · Pubmed #32053325.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

2 Guideline Medication Use to Reduce Risk of Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. 2019

Anonymous951155 / Owens, Douglas K / Davidson, Karina W / Krist, Alex H / Barry, Michael J / Cabana, Michael / Caughey, Aaron B / Doubeni, Chyke A / Epling, John W / Kubik, Martha / Landefeld, C Seth / Mangione, Carol M / Pbert, Lori / Silverstein, Michael / Tseng, Chien-Wen / Wong, John B. ·Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. · Stanford University, Stanford, California. · Feinstein Institute for Medical Research at Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York. · Fairfax Family Practice Residency, Fairfax, Virginia. · Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. · Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of California, San Francisco. · Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. · Mayo Clinic, Rochester, New York. · Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke. · Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of Alabama at Birmingham. · University of California, Los Angeles. · University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester. · Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. · University of Hawaii, Honolulu. · Pacific Health Research and Education Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii. · Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. ·JAMA · Pubmed #31479144.

ABSTRACT: Importance: Breast cancer is the most common nonskin cancer among women in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death. The median age at diagnosis is 62 years, and an estimated 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lifetime. African American women are more likely to die of breast cancer compared with women of other races. Objective: To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on medications for risk reduction of primary breast cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed evidence on the accuracy of risk assessment methods to identify women who could benefit from risk-reducing medications for breast cancer, as well as evidence on the effectiveness, adverse effects, and subgroup variations of these medications. The USPSTF reviewed evidence from randomized trials, observational studies, and diagnostic accuracy studies of risk stratification models in women without preexisting breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. Findings: The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk assessment tools can predict the number of cases of breast cancer expected to develop in a population. However, these risk assessment tools perform modestly at best in discriminating between individual women who will or will not develop breast cancer. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that risk-reducing medications (tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors) provide at least a moderate benefit in reducing risk for invasive estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women at increased risk for breast cancer. The USPSTF found that the benefits of taking tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors to reduce risk for breast cancer are no greater than small in women not at increased risk for the disease. The USPSTF found convincing evidence that tamoxifen and raloxifene and adequate evidence that aromatase inhibitors are associated with small to moderate harms. Overall, the USPSTF determined that the net benefit of taking medications to reduce risk of breast cancer is larger in women who have a greater risk for developing breast cancer. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends that clinicians offer to prescribe risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, to women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and at low risk for adverse medication effects. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends against the routine use of risk-reducing medications, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, or aromatase inhibitors, in women who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. (D recommendation) This recommendation applies to asymptomatic women 35 years and older, including women with previous benign breast lesions on biopsy (such as atypical ductal or lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ). This recommendation does not apply to women who have a current or previous diagnosis of breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.

3 Guideline Pan-Canadian standards for cancer surgery 2019

Prashad, Anubha / Mitchell, Michele / Argent-Katwala, Mary / Daly, Corinne / Earle, Craig C. / Finley, Christian. ·From the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ont. (Prashad, Mitchell, Katwala, Daly, Earle, Finley) · and the Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont. (Finley). ·Can J Surg · Pubmed #31364830.

ABSTRACT: About the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) is an independent organization funded by the federal government to accelerate action on cancer control for all Canadians. As the steward of the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (the Strategy), the Partnership works with Canada’s cancer community to take action to ensure fewer people get cancer, more people survive cancer and those living with the disease have a better quality of life. This work is guided by the Strategy, which was refreshed for 2019 to 2029, and will help drive measurable change for all Canadians affected by cancer. The Strategy includes 5 priorities that will tackle the most pressing challenges in cancer control as well as distinct First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples–specific priorities and actions reflecting Canada’s commitment to reconciliation. A specific action in the Strategy calls for reducing the differences in practice and service delivery by setting standards for high-quality care and promoting their adoption. The CPAC will oversee the implementation of the priorities in collaboration with organizations and individuals on the front lines of cancer care: the provinces and territories; health care professionals; people living with cancer and those who care for them; First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; governments and organizations; and its funder, Health Canada. Learn more about the Partnership and the refreshed Strategy at www.cancerstrategy.ca.

4 Guideline Assessment and management of bone health in women with oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy: position statement summary. 2019

Grossmann, Mathis / Ramchand, Sabashini K / Milat, Frances / Vincent, Amanda / Lim, Elgene / Kotowicz, Mark A / Hicks, Jill / Teede, Helena J. ·University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC. · Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC. · Monash University, Melbourne, VIC. · Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, VIC. · Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC. · Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW. · Deakin University, Geelong, VIC. · Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC. · Consumer Representative, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Melbourne, VIC. · Monash Partners Academic Health Sciences Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC. ·Med J Aust · Pubmed #31318068.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Representatives appointed by relevant Australian medical societies used a systematic approach for adaptation of guidelines (ADAPTE) to formulate clinical consensus recommendations on assessment and management of bone health in women with oestrogen receptor-positive early breast cancer receiving endocrine therapy. The current evidence suggests that women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors and pre-menopausal woman treated with tamoxifen have accelerated bone loss and that women receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitors have increased fracture risk. Both bisphosphonates and denosumab prevent bone loss; additionally, denosumab has proven anti-fracture benefit in post-menopausal women receiving aromatase inhibitors for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Women considering endocrine therapy need fracture risk assessment, including clinical risk factors, biochemistry and bone mineral density measurement, with monitoring based on risk factors. Weight-bearing exercise and vitamin D and calcium sufficiency are recommended routinely. Anti-resorptive treatment is indicated in women with prevalent or incident clinical or morphometric fragility fractures, and should be considered in women with a T score (or Z score in women aged < 50 years) of < - 2.0 at any site, or if annual bone loss is ≥ 5%, considering baseline bone mineral density and other fracture risk factors. Duration of anti-resorptive treatment can be individualised based on absolute fracture risk. Relative to their skeletal benefits, risks of adverse events with anti-resorptive treatments are low. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THE POSITION STATEMENT: Skeletal health should be considered in the decision-making process regarding choice and duration of endocrine therapy. Before and during endocrine therapy, skeletal health should be assessed regularly, optimised by non-pharmacological intervention and, where indicated, anti-resorptive treatment, in an individualised, multidisciplinary approach.

5 Guideline [GEFPICS' guidelines for management of breast cancer tissue samples in the neoadjuvant setting]. 2019

Maran-Gonzalez, Aurélie / Franchet, Camille / Duprez-Paumier, Raphaëlle / Antoine, Martine / Barlier, Catherine / Becette, Véronique / Berghian, Anca / Blanc-Fournier, Cécile / Brabencova, Eva / Charafe-Jauffret, Emmanuelle / Chenard, Marie-Pierre / Dauplat, Marie-Mélanie / Delrée, Paul / Fleury, Clémence / Garbar, Christian / Ghnassia, Jean-Pierre / Haudebourg, Juliette / MacGrogan, Gaëtan / Mathieu, Marie-Christine / Michenet, Patrick / Penault-Llorca, Frédérique / Poulet, Bruno / Robin, Yves / Roger, Pascal / Russ, Elisabeth / Treilleux, Isabelle / Valent, Alexander / Verriele, Véronique / Vincent-Salomon, Anne / Arnould, Laurent / Lacroix-Triki, Magali / Anonymous23021193. ·Groupe d'étude des facteurs pronostiques immunohistochimiques dans le cancer du sein, Unicancer, France. Electronic address: aurelie.maran-gonzalez@icm.unicancer.fr. · Groupe d'étude des facteurs pronostiques immunohistochimiques dans le cancer du sein, Unicancer, France. ·Ann Pathol · Pubmed #31257035.

ABSTRACT: Neoadjuvant therapy is an increasing treatment option in the management of breast cancer. The tumor response to neoadjuvant therapy, especially the pathological complete response, is a validated endpoint frequently used in clinical trials. However, there is still a lack of standardization for the surgical specimen management in the neoadjuvant setting. This leads to heterogeneity in the specimen handling and might lead to significant bias for the prognostic assessment of patients or in clinical trials. The GEFPICS group, composed of expert breast cancer pathologists, herein presents guidelines for the management of breast and axillary specimen before treatment (management of biopsy, items of the pathological report) and after neoadjuvant therapy (specimen handling, histological assessment of response, items of the pathological report and response grading systems).

6 Guideline ESTRO ACROP consensus guideline for target volume delineation in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy after implant-based immediate reconstruction for early stage breast cancer. 2019

Kaidar-Person, Orit / Vrou Offersen, Birgitte / Hol, Sandra / Arenas, Meritxell / Aristei, Cynthia / Bourgier, Celine / Cardoso, Maria Joao / Chua, Boon / Coles, Charlotte E / Engberg Damsgaard, Tine / Gabrys, Dorota / Jagsi, Reshma / Jimenez, Rachel / Kirby, Anna M / Kirkove, Carine / Kirova, Youlia / Kouloulias, Vassilis / Marinko, Tanja / Meattini, Icro / Mjaaland, Ingvil / Nader Marta, Gustavo / Witt Nystrom, Petra / Senkus, Elzbieta / Skyttä, Tanja / Tvedskov, Tove F / Verhoeven, Karolien / Poortmans, Philip. ·Oncology Institute, Radiation Oncology Unit, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. Electronic address: o_person@rambam.health.gov.il. · Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology, Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute Verbeeten, Tilburg, the Netherlands. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus, University Rovira i Virgili, Spain. · Radiation Oncology Section, Department of Surgical and Biomedical Science, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Italy. · Department of Radiation Oncology, ICM - Val d'Aurelle, INSERM U1194, IRCM; Montpellier University, Montpellier, France. · Breast Unit, Champalimaud Foundation, and Nova Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal. · Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney, NSW, Australia. · Cambridge University, Department of Oncology, United Kingdom. · Department of Plastic and Breast Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Maria Sklodowska Curie Memorial Cancer Centre, Gliwice, Poland. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA. · Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital St-Luc, Brussels, Belgium. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, Paris, France. · National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Medical School, 2nd Dpt of Radiology, Radiotherapy Unit, Athens, Greece. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia. · Department of Biomedical, Experimental, and Clinical Sciences, University of Florence, Italy, Radiation Oncology Unit - Oncology Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy. · Department of Oncology & Radiotherapy, Stavanger University Hospital, Norway. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil; Department of Radiology and Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. · The Skandion Clinic, Uppsala, Sweden and Danish Center for Particle Therapy, Aarhus, Denmark. · Department of Oncology & Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdańsk, Poland. · Department of Oncology, Tampere University Hospital, Finland. · Dept. of Breast Surgery, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. · GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Department of Radiation Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Netherlands. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Curie, and Paris Sciences & Lettres University, Paris, France. ·Radiother Oncol · Pubmed #31108277.

ABSTRACT: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) rates after mastectomy are increasing. Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) contouring guidelines for target volumes in the setting of IBR are lacking. Therefore, many patients who have had IBR receive PMRT to target volumes similar to conventional simulator-based whole breast irradiation. The aim of this paper is to describe delineation guidelines for PMRT after implant-based IBR based on a thorough understanding of the surgical procedures, disease stage, patterns of recurrence and radiation techniques. They are based on a consensus endorsed by a global multidisciplinary group of breast cancer experts.

7 Guideline Screening for Breast Cancer in Average-Risk Women: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians. 2019

Qaseem, Amir / Lin, Jennifer S / Mustafa, Reem A / Horwitch, Carrie A / Wilt, Timothy J / Anonymous961134. ·American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.Q.). · Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon (J.S.L.). · University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas (R.A.M.). · Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington (C.A.H.). · Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (T.J.W.). ·Ann Intern Med · Pubmed #30959525.

ABSTRACT: Description: The purpose of this guidance statement is to provide advice to clinicians on breast cancer screening in average-risk women based on a review of existing guidelines and the evidence they include. Methods: This guidance statement is derived from an appraisal of selected guidelines from around the world that address breast cancer screening, as well as their included evidence. All national guidelines published in English between 1 January 2013 and 15 November 2017 in the National Guideline Clearinghouse or Guidelines International Network library were included. In addition, the authors selected other guidelines commonly used in clinical practice. Web sites associated with all selected guidelines were checked for updates on 10 December 2018. The AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument was used to evaluate the quality of guidelines. Target Audience and Patient Population: The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is all asymptomatic women with average risk for breast cancer. Guidance Statement 1: In average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years, clinicians should discuss whether to screen for breast cancer with mammography before age 50 years. Discussion should include the potential benefits and harms and a woman's preferences. The potential harms outweigh the benefits in most women aged 40 to 49 years. Guidance Statement 2: In average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, clinicians should offer screening for breast cancer with biennial mammography. Guidance Statement 3: In average-risk women aged 75 years or older or in women with a life expectancy of 10 years or less, clinicians should discontinue screening for breast cancer. Guidance Statement 4: In average-risk women of all ages, clinicians should not use clinical breast examination to screen for breast cancer.

8 Guideline ABM Clinical Protocol #30: Breast Masses, Breast Complaints, and Diagnostic Breast Imaging in the Lactating Woman. 2019

Mitchell, Katrina B / Johnson, Helen M / Eglash, Anne / Anonymous801076. ·1 Breast Surgical Oncology, Presbyterian Healthcare Services-MD Anderson Cancer Network, Albuquerque, New Mexico. · 2 Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. · 3 Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin. ·Breastfeed Med · Pubmed #30892931.

ABSTRACT:

9 Guideline British Menopause Society consensus statement on the management of estrogen deficiency symptoms, arthralgia and menopause diagnosis in women treated for early breast cancer. 2019

Marsden, Jo / Marsh, Mike / Rigg, Anne / Anonymous1180980. ·1 King's College Hospital, London, UK. · 2 Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. ·Post Reprod Health · Pubmed #30776968.

ABSTRACT: This guidance document by the British Menopause Society provides an overview of the management of women experiencing estrogen deficiency symptoms and arthralgia following a breast cancer diagnosis. It is now recommended that breast cancer patients are referred to health care professionals with an expertise in menopause for the management of such symptoms, which in turn often involves liaison with patients' breast cancer teams. However, as many women initially present to primary health care professionals for advice, this statement is aimed to support the latter in such consultations by providing information about symptom aetiology, current management strategies and controversies and identifying useful practice points.

10 Guideline Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. 2019

Burstein, Harold J / Lacchetti, Christina / Griggs, Jennifer J. ·1 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. · 2 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA. · 3 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. ·J Oncol Pract · Pubmed #30523754.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

11 Guideline The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for electronic brachytherapy. 2019

Tom, Martin C / Hepel, Jaroslaw T / Patel, Rakesh / Kamrava, Mitchell / Badiyan, Shahed N / Cohen, Gil'ad N / Shah, Chirag. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Brown University, Providence, RI; Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Sutter Health, Los Gatos, CA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, MO. · Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: csshah27@hotmail.com. ·Brachytherapy · Pubmed #30497939.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Brachytherapy is utilized in the treatment of many different malignancies; although traditionally performed with low-dose-rate or high-dose-rate techniques, more recently, electronic brachytherapy (EB) has emerged as a potential alternative. At this time, there are no evidence-based guidelines to assist clinicians in patient selection for EB and concerns exits regarding differences in dosimetry as compared to traditional brachytherapy techniques. As such, the American Brachytherapy Society appointed a group of physicians and physicists to create a consensus statement regarding the use of EB. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Physicians and physicists with expertise in brachytherapy created a site-directed consensus statement for appropriate patient selection and utilization of EB based on a literature search and clinical experience. RESULTS: EB has been utilized to deliver accelerated partial breast irradiation with, thus far acceptable local control and toxicity rates including a randomized trial that used EB to deliver intraoperative radiotherapy; however, prospective data with large patient numbers and long-term follow up are needed. Increasing numbers of patients have been treated with EB for nonmelanomatous skin cancers; although, preliminary data are promising, there is a lack of data comparing EB to traditional radiotherapy techniques as well as a lack of long-term follow up. For treatment of the vaginal cuff with EB, small retrospective studies have been reported without long-term follow up. CONCLUSIONS: In light of a randomized trial in breast showing higher rates of recurrence and the lack of prospective data with mature follow up with other sites, as well as concerns regarding dosimetry, it is not recommended that EB be utilized for accelerated partial breast irradiation, nonmelanomatous skin cancers, or vaginal cuff brachytherapy outside prospective clinical trials at this time.

12 Guideline Genetic counselling and testing of susceptibility genes for therapeutic decision-making in breast cancer-an European consensus statement and expert recommendations. 2019

Singer, Christian F / Balmaña, Judith / Bürki, Nicole / Delaloge, Suzette / Filieri, Maria Elisabetta / Gerdes, Anna-Marie / Grindedal, Eli Marie / Han, Sileni / Johansson, Oskar / Kaufman, Bella / Krajc, Mateja / Loman, Niklas / Olah, Edith / Paluch-Shimon, Shani / Plavetic, Natalija Dedic / Pohlodek, Kamil / Rhiem, Kerstin / Teixeira, Manuel / Evans, D Gareth. ·Medical University of Vienna, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: christian.singer@meduniwien.ac.at. · Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron, Institute of Oncology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital Basel (UHB), Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. · Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, 114 Rue Edouard Vaillant, 94800 Villejuif, France. · Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Modena, Via del Pozzo, Modena, Italy. · Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. · Department of Medical Genetics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. · Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. · Landspitali-the National University Hospital of Iceland, Reykjavik 101, Iceland. · Breast Oncology Institute, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. · Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia, Zaloska 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. · Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Oncology and Pathology, Lund University Hospital, 221 85 Lund, Sweden. · Department of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary. · Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, Jerusalem, Israel. · Department of Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Centre Zagreb, University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia. · Second Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comenius University of Bratislava, Faculty of Medicine, 82606 Bratislava, Slovakia. · Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital of Cologne, D-50931 Cologne, Germany. · Department of Genetics, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal. · Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, University of Manchester, MAHSC, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester M13 9WL, United Kingdom. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #30471648.

ABSTRACT: An international panel of experts representing 17 European countries and Israel convened to discuss current needs and future developments in BRCA testing and counselling and to issue consensus recommendations. The experts agreed that, with the increasing availability of high-throughput testing platforms and the registration of poly-ADP-ribose-polymerase inhibitors, the need for genetic counselling and testing will rapidly increase in the near future. Consequently, the already existing shortage of genetic counsellors is expected to worsen and to compromise the quality of care particularly in individuals and families with suspected or proven hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Increasing educational efforts within the breast cancer caregiver community may alleviate this limitation by enabling all involved specialities to perform genetic counselling. In the therapeutic setting, for patients with a clinical suspicion of genetic susceptibility and if the results may have an immediate impact on the therapeutic strategy, the majority voted that BRCA1/2 testing should be performed after histological diagnosis of breast cancer, regardless of oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. Experts also agreed that, in the predictive and therapeutic setting, genetic testing should be limited to individuals with a personal or family history suggestive of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant and should also include high-risk actionable genes beyond BRCA1/2. Of high-risk actionable genes, all pathological variants (i.e. class IV and V) should be reported; class III variants of unknown significance, should be reported provided that the current lack of clinical utility of the variant is expressly stated. Genetic counselling should always address the possibility that already tested individuals might be re-contacted in case new information on a particular variant results in a re-classification.

13 Guideline European Breast Cancer Council manifesto 2018: Genetic risk prediction testing in breast cancer. 2019

Rutgers, Emiel / Balmana, Judith / Beishon, Marc / Benn, Karen / Evans, D Gareth / Mansel, Robert / Pharoah, Paul / Perry Skinner, Victoria / Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique / Travado, Luzia / Wyld, Lynda. ·Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. · Medical Oncology Department, University Hospital Vall D'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain. · European School of Oncology, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: marcbeishon@icloud.com. · Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Milan, Italy. · Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom. · School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom. · Department of Oncology, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, United Kingdom. · Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. · Department of Genetics, Institut Curie, Paris, France; University Paris Descartes, Paris, France. · Psycho-Oncology, Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon, Portugal. · Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Doncaster, United Kingdom. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #30471647.

ABSTRACT: European Breast Cancer Council manifesto and supporting article on genetic risk prediction testing in breast cancer, presented at the 11th European Breast Cancer Conference in Barcelona, Spain.

14 Guideline Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. 2019

Burstein, Harold J / Lacchetti, Christina / Anderson, Holly / Buchholz, Thomas A / Davidson, Nancy E / Gelmon, Karen A / Giordano, Sharon H / Hudis, Clifford A / Solky, Alexander J / Stearns, Vered / Winer, Eric P / Griggs, Jennifer J. ·1 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. · 2 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA. · 3 Breast Cancer Coalition of Rochester, Rochester, NY. · 4 MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. · 5 University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA. · 6 BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. · 7 Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. · 8 Interlakes Oncology and Hematology PC, Rochester, NY. · 9 Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. · 10 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #30452337.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To update the ASCO clinical practice guideline on adjuvant endocrine therapy based on emerging data about the optimal duration of aromatase inhibitor (AI) treatment. METHODS: ASCO conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials from 2012 to 2018. Guideline recommendations were based on the Panel's review of the evidence from six trials. RESULTS: The six included studies of AI treatment beyond 5 years of therapy demonstrated that extension of AI treatment was not associated with an overall survival advantage but was significantly associated with lower risks of breast cancer recurrence and contralateral breast cancer compared with placebo. Bone-related toxic effects were more common with extended AI treatment. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Panel recommends that women with node-positive breast cancer receive extended therapy, including an AI, for up to a total of 10 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment. Many women with node-negative breast cancer should consider extended therapy for up to a total of 10 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment based on considerations of recurrence risk using established prognostic factors. The Panel noted that the benefits in absolute risk of reduction were modest and that, for lower-risk node-negative or limited node-positive cancers, an individualized approach to treatment duration that is based on considerations of risk reduction and tolerability was appropriate. A substantial portion of the benefit for extended adjuvant AI therapy was derived from prevention of second breast cancers. Shared decision making between clinicians and patients is appropriate for decisions about extended adjuvant endocrine treatment, including discussions about the absolute benefits in the reduction of breast cancer recurrence, the prevention of second breast cancers, and the impact of adverse effects of treatment. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

15 Guideline Recommendations for hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation. 2018

Anonymous6790976 / Freitas, Nilceana Maya Aires / Rosa, Arthur Accioly / Marta, Gustavo Nader / Hanna, Samir Abdalla / Hanriot, Rodrigo de Morais / Borges, Allisson Bruno Barcelos / Gondim, Guilherme Rocha Melo / Pellizzon, Antonio Cassio Assis / Veras, Igor Moreira / Almeida Júnior, Wilson José de / Fernandez, Claudia Regina Scaramello Hadlich Willis / Batalha Filho, Eronides Salustiano / Castilho, Marcus Simões / Kuhnen, Felipe Quintino / Najas, Rosa Maria Xavier Faria / Affonso Júnior, Renato José / Leite, André Campana Correia / Ribeiro, Homero Lavieri Martins / Freitas Junior, Ruffo / Oliveira, Harley Francisco de. ·. Radiotherapy Department of the Araújo Jorge Hospital of the Góias State Association Against Cancer, Goiânia/GO, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Bahia State Portuguese Hospital, Salvador/BA and President of the Brazilian Radiotherapy Society (SBRT), São Paulo/SP, Brasil. · . Department of Radiology and Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP), Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. · . Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Sírio-Libanês, São Paulo, Brazil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Oswaldo Cruz German Hospital, São Paulo/SP, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos/SP, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the AC Camargo Hospital, São Paulo/SP, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Regional Integrated Oncology Center, Fortaleza-CE. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Moinhos dos Ventos Hospital, Porto Alegre-RS. · . Radiotherapy Service of the José Alencar Gomes da Silva National Cancer Institute, Rio de Janeiro/RJ, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Brasilia State University Hospital and representative of the Ministry of Health, Brasíli/DF, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Felicio Rocho Hospital, Belo Horizonte/MG, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Charity Hospital of Florianópolis, Florianópolis/SC, Brasil. · . Radiotherapy Department of the Rio Grande do Norte State League Against Cancer, Natal/RN, Brasil. · . Department of Radiation Oncology, Fundação Centro de Controle de Oncologia Manaus- AM. · . Mastology Program of the Goias Federal University, Goiânia-GO and representative of the Brazilian Mastology Society, São Paulo/SP, Brasil. · . Centro de Tratamento em Radio-Oncologia (CTR) and Ribeirão Preto Medical School (FMRP) da Universidade de São Paulo (USP) - Ribeirão Preto/SP; Hospital Márcio Cunha (HMC) - Ipatinga/MG, Brasil. ·Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) · Pubmed #30672995.

ABSTRACT: This recommendation consensus for hypofractionated whole-breast radiotherapy (RT) was organized by the Brazilian Society of Radiotherapy (SBRT) considering the optimal scenario for indication and safety in the technology applied. All controversies and contraindication matters (hypofractionated RT in patients who underwent chemotherapy [CT], hypofractionated RT in lymphatic drainage, hypofractionated RT after mastectomy with or without immediate reconstruction, boost during surgery, hypofractionated RT in patients under 50 years old, hypofractionated RT in large breasts, hypofractionated RT in histology of carcinoma in situ [DCIS]) was discussed during a meeting in person, and a consensus was reached when there was an agreement of at least 75% among panel members. The grade for recommendation was also suggested according to the level of scientific evidence available, qualified as weak, medium, or strong. Thus, this consensus will aid Brazilian radiotherapy experts regarding indications and particularities of this technique as a viable and safe alternative for the national reality.

16 Guideline Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer. 2018

Klarenbach, Scott / Sims-Jones, Nicki / Lewin, Gabriela / Singh, Harminder / Thériault, Guylène / Tonelli, Marcello / Doull, Marion / Courage, Susan / Garcia, Alejandra Jaramillo / Thombs, Brett D / Anonymous851067. ·Department of Medicine (Klarenbach), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. · Department of Family Medicine (Lewin), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. · Departments of Internal Medicine and Community Health Sciences (Singh), University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. · Department of Family Medicine (Thériault), McGill University, Montréal, Que. · Department of Medicine (Tonelli), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta. · Public Health Agency of Canada (Sims-Jones, Courage, Doull, Jaramillo Garcia), Ottawa, Ont. · Department of Psychiatry (Thombs), McGill University, Montréal, Que. ·CMAJ · Pubmed #30530611.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

17 Guideline No. 366-Gynaecologic Management of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. 2018

Jacobson, Michelle / Bernardini, Marcus / Sobel, Mara L / Kim, Raymond H / McCuaig, Jeanna / Allen, Lisa. ·Toronto, ON. ·J Obstet Gynaecol Can · Pubmed #30473125.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: This Committee Opinion outlines the gynaecologic management recommendations for women diagnosed with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) with respect to screening, contraception, chemoprophylaxis, fertility considerations, risk-reducing surgery, and post-oophorectomy care. INTENDED USERS: This Committee Opinion is designed for gynaecologic oncologists, general gynaecologists, family physicians, genetic counsellors, registered nurses, nurse practitioners, residents, and health care providers. TARGET POPULATION: Adult women (18 years and older) with a pathogenic germline variant in the BRCA1, BRCA2, and other ovarian cancer-associated genes. EVIDENCE: While reviewing evidence, databases searched include Medline, Cochrane, and PubMed. Medical Subject Heading search terms used include BRCA AND gynaecology management, hormone replacement therapy, risk reduction, chemoprophylaxis, fertility from 01/2010 and 10/2017. Literature search was begun 07/2017 and finalized 10/2017. In total 183 studies were identified, and 101 were used. VALIDATION METHODS: The content and recommendations were drafted and agreed upon by the principal authors. The Board of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada approved the final draft for publication. The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology framework (Table 1). The interpretation of strong and conditional (weak) recommendations is described in Table 2. The Summary of Findings is available upon request. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: We may expect a risk reduction of up to 90% in women predisposed to HBOC who undergo risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. The harms of iatrogenic premature menopause are offset by the benefits of risk reduction. By minimizing potential tubal/ovarian/peritoneal cancers, we can expect savings to the health care system. GUIDELINE UPDATE: Evidence will be reviewed 5 years after publication to decide whether all or part of the opinion should be updated. However, if important new evidence is published prior to the 5-year cycle, the review process may be accelerated for a more rapid update of some recommendations. SPONSORS: This guideline was developed with resources funded by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada.

18 Guideline Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. 2018

Bevers, Therese B / Helvie, Mark / Bonaccio, Ermelinda / Calhoun, Kristine E / Daly, Mary B / Farrar, William B / Garber, Judy E / Gray, Richard / Greenberg, Caprice C / Greenup, Rachel / Hansen, Nora M / Harris, Randall E / Heerdt, Alexandra S / Helsten, Teresa / Hodgkiss, Linda / Hoyt, Tamarya L / Huff, John G / Jacobs, Lisa / Lehman, Constance Dobbins / Monsees, Barbara / Niell, Bethany L / Parker, Catherine C / Pearlman, Mark / Philpotts, Liane / Shepardson, Laura B / Smith, Mary Lou / Stein, Matthew / Tumyan, Lusine / Williams, Cheryl / Bergman, Mary Anne / Kumar, Rashmi. · ·J Natl Compr Canc Netw · Pubmed #30442736.

ABSTRACT: The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis have been developed to facilitate clinical decision making. This manuscript discusses the diagnostic evaluation of individuals with suspected breast cancer due to either abnormal imaging and/or physical findings. For breast cancer screening recommendations, please see the full guidelines on NCCN.org.

19 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2018

Anonymous7190967 / Niell, Bethany L / Lourenco, Ana P / Moy, Linda / Baron, Paul / Didwania, Aarati D / diFlorio-Alexander, Roberta M / Heller, Samantha L / Holbrook, Anna I / Le-Petross, Huong T / Lewin, Alana A / Mehta, Tejas S / Slanetz, Priscilla J / Stuckey, Ashley R / Tuscano, Daymen S / Ulaner, Gary A / Vincoff, Nina S / Weinstein, Susan P / Newell, Mary S. ·H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. Electronic address: bethany.niell@gmail.com. · Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. · Panel Vice-Chair, NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Roper St Francis Physician Partners Breast Surgery, Charleston, South Carolina; American College of Surgeons. · Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; American College of Physicians. · Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. · New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. · Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. · The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. · Mecklenburg Radiology Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina. · Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York. · Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Panel Chair, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #30392600.

ABSTRACT: Although the majority of male breast problems are benign with gynecomastia as the most common etiology, men with breast symptoms and their referring providers are typically concerned about whether or not it is due to breast cancer. If the differentiation between benign disease and breast cancer cannot be made on the basis of clinical findings, or if the clinical presentation is suspicious, imaging is indicated. The panel recommends the following approach to breast imaging in symptomatic men. In men with clinical findings consistent with gynecomastia or pseudogynecomastia, no imaging is routinely recommended. If an indeterminate breast mass is identified, the initial recommended imaging study is ultrasound in men younger than age 25, and mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis in men age 25 and older. If physical examination is suspicious for a male breast cancer, mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis is recommended irrespective of patient age. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

20 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2018

Anonymous7150967 / Holbrook, Anna I / Moy, Linda / Akin, Esma A / Baron, Paul / Didwania, Aarati D / Heller, Samantha L / Le-Petross, Huong T / Lewin, Alana A / Lourenco, Ana P / Mehta, Tejas S / Niell, Bethany L / Slanetz, Priscilla J / Stuckey, Ashley R / Tuscano, Daymen S / Vincoff, Nina S / Weinstein, Susan P / Newell, Mary S. ·Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: anna.holbrook@emoryhealthcare.org. · Panel Vice-Chair, NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York. · George Washington University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia. · Roper St. Francis Physician Partners Breast Surgery, Charleston, South Carolina; American College of Surgeons. · Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; American College of Physicians. · New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. · The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. · Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. · Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. · Mecklenburg Radiology Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina. · Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York. · Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Panel Chair, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #30392596.

ABSTRACT: Breast pain is a common complaint. However, in the absence any accompanying suspicious clinical finding (eg, lump or nipple discharge), the association with malignancy is very low (0%-3.0%). When malignancy-related, breast pain tends to be focal (less than one quadrant) and persistent. Pain that is clinically insignificant (nonfocal [greater than one quadrant], diffuse, or cyclical) requires no imaging beyond what is recommended for screening. In cases of pain that is clinically significant (focal and noncyclical), imaging with mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and ultrasound are appropriate, depending on the patient's age. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

21 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2018

Anonymous7140967 / diFlorio-Alexander, Roberta M / Slanetz, Priscilla J / Moy, Linda / Baron, Paul / Didwania, Aarati D / Heller, Samantha L / Holbrook, Anna I / Lewin, Alana A / Lourenco, Ana P / Mehta, Tejas S / Niell, Bethany L / Stuckey, Ashley R / Tuscano, Daymen S / Vincoff, Nina S / Weinstein, Susan P / Newell, Mary S. ·Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Electronic address: rmda@hitchcock.org. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Panel Vice-Chair, NYU Clinical Cancer Center, New York, New York. · Roper St Francis Physician Partners Breast Surgery, Charleston, South Carolina; American College of Surgeons. · Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; American College of Physicians. · New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. · Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. · Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. · Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. · Mecklenburg Radiology Associates, Charlotte, North Carolina. · Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York. · Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · Panel Chair, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #30392595.

ABSTRACT: Breast imaging during pregnancy and lactation is challenging due to unique physiologic and structural breast changes that increase the difficulty of clinical and radiological evaluation. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC) is increasing as more women delay child bearing into the fourth decade of life, and imaging of clinical symptoms should not be delayed. PABC may present as a palpable lump, nipple discharge, diffuse breast enlargement, focal pain, or milk rejection. Breast imaging during lactation is very similar to breast imaging in women who are not breast feeding. However, breast imaging during pregnancy is modified to balance both maternal and fetal well-being; and there is a limited role for advanced breast imaging techniques in pregnant women. Mammography is safe during pregnancy and breast cancer screening should be tailored to patient age and breast cancer risk. Diagnostic breast imaging during pregnancy should be obtained to evaluate clinical symptoms and for loco-regional staging of newly diagnosed PABC. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

22 Guideline [Contraception and cancer: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]. 2018

Pragout, D / Laurence, V / Baffet, H / Raccah-Tebeka, B / Rousset-Jablonski, C. ·Service de gynécologie obstétrique, unité d'orthogénie, CHRU de Tours, 2, boulevard Tonnellé, 37044 Tours, France. · Département d'oncologie médicale, Institut Curie, 26, rue d'Ulm, 75005 Paris, France. · Service de gynécologie médicale, orthogénie et médecine du couple, hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, CHRU de Lille, avenue Eugène-Avinée, 59037 Lille cedex, France. · Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, hôpital Robert-Debré, AP-HP, 75019 Paris, France. · Département de chirurgie, centre de lutte contre le cancer Léon Bérard, 28, rue Laënnec, 69008 Lyon, France; Service de chirurgie gynécologique et oncologique - obstétrique, centre hospitalier Lyon Sud, 165, chemin du grand Revoyet, 69310 Pierre Bénite, France. Electronic address: christine.rousset-jablonski@lyon.unicancer.fr. ·Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol · Pubmed #30385358.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: To synthesize knowledge on cancer risks related to hormonal contraception and to propose recommendations on contraception during treatment and after cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature about hormonal contraception and cancer was conducted on PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: Overall, there is no increase in cancer (all types together) incidence or mortality among hormonal contraceptive users. Estroprogestin combined contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (during use), and with a reduced risk of endometrial, ovarian, lymphatic or hematopoietic cancers that persist after discontinuation, and a decreased risk of colorectal cancer. Information on cancer risk is part of the systematic information given to patients wishing contraception. However, these data will not influence its prescription, considering the positive risk/benefit balance in women without specific cancer risk factor. Contraception is required during and after cancer treatment in every non-menopausal woman at cancer diagnosis. Specific thromboembolic, immunologic or vomiting risks due to the oncological context should be taken into account before the contraceptive choice. All hormonal contraceptives are contra-indicated after breast cancer, regardless of the delay since treatment, hormone receptor status and histological subtype. There is no data in the literature to limit hormonal or non-hormonal contraceptive use after colorectal or thyroid cancer. There was insufficient data in the literature to propose recommendations on contraceptive choice after cervical cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, tumor of the central nervous system, or after thoracic irradiation. If an emergency contraception is needed in a woman previously treated for a hormone-sensitive cancer, a non-hormonal copper intrauterine device should be preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Information on cancer risk is part of the patient's information but does not influence the prescription of contraception in the absence of any specific risk factor. Contraception should be proposed in every woman treated or previously treated for cancer. The whole context should be taken into account to choose a tailored contraception.

23 Guideline [The French Genetic and Cancer Consortium guidelines for multigene panel analysis in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer predisposition]. 2018

Moretta, Jessica / Berthet, Pascaline / Bonadona, Valérie / Caron, Olivier / Cohen-Haguenauer, Odile / Colas, Chrystelle / Corsini, Carole / Cusin, Véronica / De Pauw, Antoine / Delnatte, Capucine / Dussart, Sophie / Jamain, Christophe / Longy, Michel / Luporsi, Elisabeth / Maugard, Christine / Nguyen, Tan Dat / Pujol, Pascal / Vaur, Dominique / Andrieu, Nadine / Lasset, Christine / Noguès, Catherine / Anonymous4350963. ·Institut Paoli-Calmettes, oncogénétique clinique, département d'anticipation et de suivi des cancers, 232, boulevard Sainte-Marguerite, 13009 Marseille, France. Electronic address: morettaj@ipc.unicancer.fr. · Centre François-Baclesse, oncogénétique clinique, département de biopathologie, 14000 Caen, France. · Centre Léon-Berard, unité clinique d'oncologie génétique, 69008 Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, CNRS, LBBE UMR 5558, 69622 Villeurbanne, France. · Gustave-Roussy hôpital universitaire, département de médecine, 94800 Villejuif, France. · GH Saint-Louis-Lariboisière-Fernand-Widal, oncogénétique, 75010 Paris, France. · Institut Curie, oncogénétique, 75005 Paris, France. · CHRU de Montpellier, hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, service d'oncogénétique, 34090 Montpellier, France. · Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière-Charles-Foix, service de génétique, 75013 Paris, France. · ICO-Centre René-Gauducheau, unité d'oncogénétique, 44800 Nantes, France. · Centre Léon-Berard, unité clinique d'oncologie génétique, 69008 Lyon, France. · Unicancer, 75654 Paris France. · Institut Bergonié, oncogénétique, Inserm U 1218, 33000 Bordeaux, France. · CHR de Metz Thionville, oncogénétique, 57100 Metz, France. · CHU de Strasbourg, oncogénétique clinique, oncogénétique moléculaire, évaluation familiale et suivi, laboratoire d'oncobiologie, 67000 Strasbourg, France. · Institut Jean-Godinot, oncogénétique, 51100 Reims, France. · Centre François-Baclesse, laboratoire de biologie et de génétique du cancer, 14000 Caen, France. · Inserm, U900, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Mines ParisTech, 75005 Paris, France. · Université Lyon 1, CNRS, LBBE UMR 5558, 69622 Villeurbanne, France; Centre Léon Bérard, département de santé publique, unité de prévention et épidémiologie génétique, 69008 Lyon, France. · Institut Paoli-Calmettes, oncogénétique clinique, département d'anticipation et de suivi des cancers, 232, boulevard Sainte-Marguerite, 13009 Marseille, France; Aix-Marseille université, Inserm, IRD, SESSTIM, 13000 Marseille, France. ·Bull Cancer · Pubmed #30268633.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Next generation sequencing allows the simultaneous analysis of large panel of genes for families or individuals with a strong suspicion of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer (HBOC). Because of lack of guidelines, several panels of genes potentially involved in HBOC were designed, with large disparities not only in their composition but also in medical care offered to mutation carriers. Then, homogenization in practices is needed. METHODS: The French Genetic and Cancer Group (GGC) - Unicancer conducted an exhaustive bibliographic work on 18 genes of interest. Only publications with unbiased risk estimates were retained. RESULTS: The expertise of each 18 genes was based on clinical utility criteria, i.e. a relative risk of cancer of 4 and more, available medical tools for screening and prevention of mutation carriers, and pre-symptomatic genetic tests for relatives. Finally, 13 genes were selected to be included in a HBOC diagnosis gene panel: BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, TP53, CDH1, PTEN, RAD51C, RAD51D, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM. The reasons for excluding NBN, RAD51B, CHEK2, STK11, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1 from the HBOC diagnosis panel are presented. Screening, prevention and genetic counselling guidelines were detailed for each of the 18 genes. DISCUSSION: Due to the rapid increase in knowledge, the GGC has planned a yearly update of the bibliography to take into account new findings. Furthermore, genetic-epidemiological studies are being initiated to better estimate the cancer risk associated with genes which are not yet included in the HBOC diagnosis panel.

24 Guideline 4th ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 4)†. 2018

Cardoso, F / Senkus, E / Costa, A / Papadopoulos, E / Aapro, M / André, F / Harbeck, N / Aguilar Lopez, B / Barrios, C H / Bergh, J / Biganzoli, L / Boers-Doets, C B / Cardoso, M J / Carey, L A / Cortés, J / Curigliano, G / Diéras, V / El Saghir, N S / Eniu, A / Fallowfield, L / Francis, P A / Gelmon, K / Johnston, S R D / Kaufman, B / Koppikar, S / Krop, I E / Mayer, M / Nakigudde, G / Offersen, B V / Ohno, S / Pagani, O / Paluch-Shimon, S / Penault-Llorca, F / Prat, A / Rugo, H S / Sledge, G W / Spence, D / Thomssen, C / Vorobiof, D A / Xu, B / Norton, L / Winer, E P. ·European School of Oncology (ESO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Center/Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal. Electronic address: fatimacardoso@fundacaochampalimaud.pt. · European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland. · European School of Oncology, Milan, Italy. · Europa Donna Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus. · Oncology Department, Clinique de Genolier, Genolier, Switzerland. · Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. · Breast Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany. · Direction Office, ULACCAM (Union Latinoamericana Contra el Cáncer de la Mujer), Mexico DF, Mexico. · Department of Oncology, PURCS School of Medicine, Porto Alegre, Brazil. · Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institute & University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. · European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and Department of Medical Oncology, Nuovo Ospedale di Prato - Istituto Toscano Tumori, Prato, Italy. · CB Boers Organization, Wormer, The Netherlands. · Breast Unit, Champalimaud Clinical Center/Champalimaud Foundation and Nova Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal. · Department of Hematology and Oncology, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, USA. · Department of Oncology, Vall d' Hebron University, Barcelona, Spain. · Division of Early Drug Development, Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, University of Milano, Milano, Italy. · Gynaecology and Breast Department, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France. · Breast Center of Excellence, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. · Breast Cancer Department, Cancer Institute Ion Chiricuta, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. · SHORE-C, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. · Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. · Medical Oncology Department, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, Canada. · Department of Medicine, The Royal Marsden, Sutton, UK. · Department of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. · Department of Medical Oncology, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Sciences, Mumbai, India. · Breast Oncology Center Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA. · Advanced BC.org, New York, USA. · Advocacy Department, UWOCASO (Uganda Women's Cancer Support Organization), Kampala, Uganda. · European Society of Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) and Department of Experimental Clinical Oncology & Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. · Cancer Institute Hospital, Breast Oncology Centre, Tokyo, Japan. · Institute of Oncology of Southern Switzerland, Geneva University Hospitals, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK), International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG), Bellinzona, Switzerland. · Oncology Institute, Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, Jerusalem, Israel. · Department of Pathology, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand Cedex, France. · IDIBAPS (Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi iSunyer), Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, Translational Genomics and Targeted Therapeutics in Solid Tumor, Barcelona, Spain. · Breast Oncology Clinical Trials Education, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, USA. · Oncology Division, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, USA. · Policy Department, Breast Cancer Network Australia, Camberwell, VIC, Australia. · Department of Gynaecology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenburg, Halle, Germany. · Oncology Department, Sandton Oncology Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa. · Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China. · Breast Cancer Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York. · Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Susan Smith Center for Women's Cancers, Breast Oncology Center, Boston, USA. ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #30032243.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

25 Guideline Recommendations on Disease Management for Patients With Advanced Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Breast Cancer and Brain Metastases: ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Update Summary. 2018

Ramakrishna, Naren / Temin, Sarah / Lin, Nancy U. ·University of Florida Health Cancer Center at Orlando Health, Orlando, FL; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. ·J Oncol Pract · Pubmed #29989840.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

Next