Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Breast Neoplasms HELP
Based on 100,000 articles published since 2008
|||| 71 

These are the 100000 published articles about Breast Neoplasms that originated from Worldwide during 2008-2019.
 
+ 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 Recommendations for hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation. 2018

Anonymous3671096 / 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.

2 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2018

Anonymous2731124 / 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.

3 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2018

Anonymous2691124 / 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.

4 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2018

Anonymous3211155 / 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.

5 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.

6 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 / Anonymous7380963. ·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.

7 Guideline Guidelines for early detection of breast cancer in Brazil. II - New national recommendations, main evidence, and controversies. 2018

Migowski, Arn / Silva, Gulnar Azevedo E / Dias, Maria Beatriz Kneipp / Diz, Maria Del Pilar Estevez / Sant'Ana, Denise Rangel / Nadanovsky, Paulo. ·Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. · Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. · Instituto de Medicina Social, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. · Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. · Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. ·Cad Saude Publica · Pubmed #29947654.

ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Brazilian women. The new Brazilian guidelines for early detection of breast cancer were drafted on the basis of systematic literature reviews on the possible harms and benefits of various early detection strategies. This article aims to present the recommendations and update the summary of evidence, discussing the main controversies. Breast cancer screening recommendations (in asymptomatic women) were: (i) strong recommendation against mammogram screening in women under 50 years of age; (ii) weak recommendation for mammogram screening in women 50 to 69 years of age; (iii) weak recommendation against mammogram screening in women 70 to 74 years of age; (iv) strong recommendation against mammogram screening in women 75 years or older; (v) strong recommendation that screening in the recommended age brackets should be every two years as opposed to shorter intervals; (vi) weak recommendation against teaching breast self-examination as screening; (vii) absence of recommendation for or against screening with clinical breast examination; and (viii) strong recommendation against screening with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, thermography, or tomosynthesis alone or as a complement to mammography. The recommendations for early diagnosis of breast cancer (in women with suspicious signs or symptoms) were: (i) weak recommendation for the implementation of awareness-raising strategies for early diagnosis of breast cancer; (ii) weak recommendation for use of selected signs and symptoms in the current guidelines as the criterion for urgent referral to specialized breast diagnosis services; and (iii) weak recommendation that every breast cancer diagnostic workup after the identification of suspicious signs and symptoms in primary care should be done in the same referral center.

8 Guideline Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. 2018

Wolff, Antonio C / Hammond, M Elizabeth Hale / Allison, Kimberly H / Harvey, Brittany E / Mangu, Pamela B / Bartlett, John M S / Bilous, Michael / Ellis, Ian O / Fitzgibbons, Patrick / Hanna, Wedad / Jenkins, Robert B / Press, Michael F / Spears, Patricia A / Vance, Gail H / Viale, Giuseppe / McShane, Lisa M / Dowsett, Mitchell. ·Antonio C. Wolff, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland; Lisa M. McShane, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; M. Elizabeth Hale Hammond, Intermountain Healthcare and University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City; Kimberly H. Allison, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Patrick Fitzgibbons, St Jude Medical Center, Fullerton, California; Michael F. Press, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; Brittany E. Harvey and Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, Virginia; John M.S. Bartlett, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Wedad Hanna, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Michael Bilous, Western Sydney University and Australian Clinical Laboratories, Sydney, Australia; Ian O. Ellis, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom; Mitchell Dowsett, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom; Robert B. Jenkins, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Patricia A. Spears, Cancer Information and Support Network, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gail H. Vance, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis; and Giuseppe Viale, University of Milan and Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, Milan, Italy. ·Arch Pathol Lab Med · Pubmed #29846104.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE.—: To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer guideline. METHODS.—: Based on the signals approach, an Expert Panel reviewed published literature and research survey results on the observed frequency of less common in situ hybridization (ISH) patterns to update the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS.—: Two recommendations addressed via correspondence in 2015 are included. First, immunohistochemistry (IHC) 2+ is defined as invasive breast cancer with weak to moderate complete membrane staining observed in >10% of tumor cells. Second, if the initial HER2 test result in a core needle biopsy specimen of a primary breast cancer is negative, a new HER2 test may (not "must") be ordered on the excision specimen based on specific clinical criteria. The HER2 testing algorithm for breast cancer is updated to address the recommended workup for less common clinical scenarios (approximately 5% of cases) observed when using a dual-probe ISH assay. These scenarios are described as ISH group 2 ( HER2/chromosome enumeration probe 17 [CEP17] ratio ≥2.0; average HER2 copy number <4.0 signals per cell), ISH group 3 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥6.0 signals per cell), and ISH group 4 ( HER2/CEP17 ratio <2.0; average HER2 copy number ≥4.0 and <6.0 signals per cell). The diagnostic approach includes more rigorous interpretation criteria for ISH and requires concomitant IHC review for dual-probe ISH groups 2 to 4 to arrive at the most accurate HER2 status designation (positive or negative) based on combined interpretation of the ISH and IHC assays. The Expert Panel recommends that laboratories using single-probe ISH assays include concomitant IHC review as part of the interpretation of all single-probe ISH assay results.

9 Guideline NHS Breast Screening multidisciplinary working group guidelines for the diagnosis and management of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential on core biopsy (B3 lesions). 2018

Pinder, S E / Shaaban, A / Deb, R / Desai, A / Gandhi, A / Lee, A H S / Pain, S / Wilkinson, L / Sharma, N. ·Department of Breast Pathology, King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London SE1 9RT, UK. · Department of Histopathology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Birmingham B15 2WB, UK. · Department of Histopathology, Royal Derby Hospital, Uttoxeter New Road, Derby DE22 3NE, UK. · Department of Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery, Breast Care, Chartwell Unit, Princess Royal University Hospital, Farnborough Common, Kent BR6 8ND, UK. · Department of Breast & Endocrine Surgery, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester M23 9LT, UK. · Department of Histopathology, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK. · Department of Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, UK. · Department of Radiology, St George's Hospital, Blackshaw Road, Tooting, London SW17 0BZ, UK. · Department of Radiology, Breast Unit, Level 1 Chancellor Wing, St James Hospital, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK. Electronic address: nisha.sharma2@nhs.net. ·Clin Radiol · Pubmed #29773220.

ABSTRACT: Needle core biopsy is considered the histological diagnostic method of choice for screen-detected breast lesions. Although the majority are definitively diagnosed as normal, benign, or malignant, approximately 7% are categorised as B3, of uncertain malignant potential. These include a wide range of lesions with different risks of associated malignancy from <2% to approaching 40% from literature review in UK practice. Historically, these have typically been surgically excised as a diagnostic procedure but the majority are then proven to be benign. An alternative approach, for many of these lesions, is thorough sampling/excision by vacuum-assisted biopsy techniques to exclude the presence of co-existing carcinoma. This would potentially reduce the benign open biopsy rate whilst maintaining accuracy of cancer diagnosis. A group from the Radiology, Surgery, and Pathology NHS Breast Screening Programme Co-ordinating Committees and an additional co-opted expert were charged with review and development of guidelines for the clinical management of B3 lesions. The guidelines reflect suggested practice as stated by the NHS Breast Screening Programme and approved by the Royal College of Radiologists.

10 Guideline ESTRO-ACROP guideline: Interstitial multi-catheter breast brachytherapy as Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation alone or as boost - GEC-ESTRO Breast Cancer Working Group practical recommendations. 2018

Strnad, Vratislav / Major, Tibor / Polgar, Csaba / Lotter, Michael / Guinot, Jose-Luis / Gutierrez-Miguelez, Cristina / Galalae, Razvan / Van Limbergen, Erik / Guix, Benjamin / Niehoff, Peter / Lössl, Kristina / Hannoun-Levi, Jean-Michel. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany. Electronic address: vratislav.strnad@uk-erlangen.de. · Center of Radiotherapy, National Institute of Oncology Budapest, Hungary. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Erlangen, Germany. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Catalan Institute of Oncology Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Radiation Therapy, Evangelische Kliniken, Gelsenkirchen, Germany. · Department of Radiotherapy, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. · IMOR Foundation, Medical Institute for Radiotherapy and Oncology, Barcelona, Spain. · Department of Radiation Therapy, Sana Hospital Offenbach, Germany. · Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Bern, Inselspital, Switzerland. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. ·Radiother Oncol · Pubmed #29691075.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: This consensus statement from the Breast Cancer Working Group of Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (GEC-ESTRO) aims at generating practical guidelines for multi-catheter image-guided brachytherapy in the conservative management of breast cancer patients used for either Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation (APBI) or for a breast boost. METHODS: Recent advances in techniques of multi-catheter brachytherapy were summarized and all the relevant literature was reviewed by a panel of experts. Panel members of the GEC-ESTRO experts participated in a series of conferences, supplemented their clinical experience, were surveyed to determine their current practices and patterns, performed a literature review, and formulated recommendations for implementing APBI with multi-catheter brachytherapy, focusing on treatment planning issues, catheter insertion, dosimetry and quality assurance. This document was reviewed and approved by the full panel, the GEC-ESTRO executive board and by the ACROP (Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice). RESULTS: Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning, catheter insertion techniques, dosimetry and methods of quality assurance for APBI and boost with multi-catheter image-guided brachytherapy after breast conserving surgery are described. Detailed recommendations for daily practice including dose constraints are given. CONCLUSIONS: Recent standards and guidelines for the use of APBI with different multi-catheter image-guided brachytherapy techniques have been defined. Different techniques are used to insert the catheters. Guidelines are mandatory to assure precise catheter insertion for coverage of the target volume and to guarantee high-quality dosimetry. The same rules apply for brachytherapy based boost irradiation for breast cancer after whole breast irradiation as well as for partial breast re-irradiation.

11 Guideline Updated ASTRO guidelines on accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI): to whom can we offer APBI outside a clinical trial? 2018

Kirby, Anna M. ·1 Department of Radiotherapy, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research , Sutton , UK. ·Br J Radiol · Pubmed #29513031.

ABSTRACT: The American Society of Radiation Oncology has recently updated its guidelines on the role of accelerated partial breast irradiation in the management of breast cancer. This commentary discusses the new recommendations and how we might advise patients in the light of existing data.

12 Guideline Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Recommendations From the ACR. 2018

Monticciolo, Debra L / Newell, Mary S / Moy, Linda / Niell, Bethany / Monsees, Barbara / Sickles, Edward A. ·Scott & White Medical Center, Texas A&M University Health Sciences, Temple, Texas. Electronic address: debra.monticciolo@bswhealth.org. · Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. · Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU School of Medicine, New York, New York. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. · Division of Diagnostic Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. · University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #29371086.

ABSTRACT: Early detection decreases breast cancer mortality. The ACR recommends annual mammographic screening beginning at age 40 for women of average risk. Higher-risk women should start mammographic screening earlier and may benefit from supplemental screening modalities. For women with genetics-based increased risk (and their untested first-degree relatives), with a calculated lifetime risk of 20% or more or a history of chest or mantle radiation therapy at a young age, supplemental screening with contrast-enhanced breast MRI is recommended. Breast MRI is also recommended for women with personal histories of breast cancer and dense tissue, or those diagnosed by age 50. Others with histories of breast cancer and those with atypia at biopsy should consider additional surveillance with MRI, especially if other risk factors are present. Ultrasound can be considered for those who qualify for but cannot undergo MRI. All women, especially black women and those of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, should be evaluated for breast cancer risk no later than age 30, so that those at higher risk can be identified and can benefit from supplemental screening.

13 Guideline The American Brachytherapy Society consensus statement for accelerated partial-breast irradiation. 2018

Shah, Chirag / Vicini, Frank / Shaitelman, Simona F / Hepel, Jaroslaw / Keisch, Martin / Arthur, Douglas / Khan, Atif J / Kuske, Robert / Patel, Rakesh / Wazer, David E. ·Department of Radiation Oncology, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: csshah27@hotmail.com. · 21st Century Oncology, Michigan Healthcare Professionals, Farmington Hills, MI. · Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA; Department of Radiation Oncology, Brown University, Providence, RI. · Cancer Healthcare Associates, Miami, FL. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. · Arizona Breast Cancer Specialists, Scottsdale, AZ. · Department of Radiation Oncology, Sutter Health, Los Gatos, CA. ·Brachytherapy · Pubmed #29074088.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Adjuvant radiation after breast-conserving surgery remains the standard-of-care treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and early-stage invasive breast cancer. Multiple alternatives to standard whole-breast irradiation exist including accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI). Therefore, the purpose of this APBI guideline is to provide updated data for clinicians as well as recommendations regarding appropriate patient selection and techniques to deliver APBI. METHODS: Members of the American Brachytherapy Society with expertise in breast cancer and breast brachytherapy in particular created an updated guideline for appropriate patient selection based on an extensive literature search and clinical experience. In addition, data were evaluated with respect to APBI techniques and recommendations presented. RESULTS: Appropriate candidates for APBI include patients aged 45 years or older, all invasive histologies and ductal carcinoma in situ, tumors 3 cm or less, node negative, estrogen receptor positive/negative, no lymphovascular space invasion, and negative margins. With respect to techniques, the strongest evidence is for interstitial brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy APBI with moderate evidence to support applicator brachytherapy or three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy APBI. Intraoperative radiation therapy and electronic brachytherapy should not be offered regardless of technique outside of clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: The updated guidelines presented offer clinicians with a summary of data supporting APBI and guidelines for the appropriate and safe utilization of the technique.

14 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2017

Anonymous7850925 / Slanetz, Priscilla J / Moy, Linda / Baron, Paul / diFlorio, Roberta M / Green, Edward D / Heller, Samantha L / Holbrook, Anna I / Lee, Su-Ju / Lewin, Alana A / Lourenco, Ana P / Niell, Bethany / Stuckey, Ashley R / Trikha, Sunita / Vincoff, Nina S / Weinstein, Susan P / Yepes, Monica M / Newell, Mary S. ·Principal Author, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: pslanetz@bidmc.harvard.edu. · 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. · Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. · The University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi. · New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. · Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. · University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. · Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. · Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. · Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. · Northwell Health, Syosset, New York. · Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York. · Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of Miami, Miami, Florida. · Panel Chair, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #29101985.

ABSTRACT: Patients with locally advanced invasive breast cancers are often treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgical intervention. The primary aims of this approach are to: 1) reduce tumor burden thereby permitting breast conservation rather than mastectomy; 2) promptly treat possible metastatic disease, whether or not it is detectable on preoperative staging; and 3) potentially tailor future chemotherapeutic decisions by monitoring in-vivo tumor response. Accurate radiological assessment permits optimal management and planning in this population. However, assessment of tumor size and response to treatment can vary depending on the modality used, the measurement technique (such as single longest diameter, 3-D measurements, or calculated tumor volume), and varied response of different tumor subtypes to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (such as concentric shrinkage or tumor fragmentation). As discussed in further detail, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, US and MRI represent the key modalities with potential to help guide patient management. 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.

15 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2017

Anonymous7840925 / Oliva, Isabel B / Day, Kevin / Dill, Karin E / Hanley, Michael / Ahmed, Osmanuddin / Bennett, Shelby J / Desjardins, Benoit / Gage, Kenneth L / Ginsburg, Michael / Hamawy, Adam H / Steigner, Michael L / Strax, Richard / Verma, Nupur / Rybicki, Frank J. ·Principal Author, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: isabel.oliva@yale.edu. · Research Author, Stanford University, Stanford, California. · Panel Chair, UMass Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts. · Panel Vice Chair, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia. · Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. · University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. · University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. · Palos Community Hospital, Palos Heights, Illinois. · Princeton Plastic Surgeons, Princeton, New Jersey; American College of Surgeons. · Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. · Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. · University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. · Specialty Chair, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and the Department of Radiology, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #29101984.

ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States. Breast reconstruction surgery is a commonly used therapy for patients with breast cancer. The technique for the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap uses a preserved rectus muscle, which decreases donor site morbidity. Accurate identification and measurement of the perforator branches of the deep inferior epigastric artery is pivotal during pre-operative planning so that the surgeon can prioritize the best vessel to use and ultimately improve clinical outcome. 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.

16 Guideline ACR Appropriateness Criteria 2017

Anonymous7790925 / Mainiero, Martha B / Moy, Linda / Baron, Paul / Didwania, Aarati D / diFlorio, Roberta M / Green, Edward D / Heller, Samantha L / Holbrook, Anna I / Lee, Su-Ju / Lewin, Alana A / Lourenco, Ana P / Nance, Kara J / Niell, Bethany L / Slanetz, Priscilla J / Stuckey, Ashley R / Vincoff, Nina S / Weinstein, Susan P / Yepes, Monica M / Newell, Mary S. ·Principal Author, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Electronic address: mmainiero@lifespan.org. · 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. · The University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi. · New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. · Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. · University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. · Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. · Wellessence MD, Schaumburg, Illinois; American College of Physicians. · H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. · Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. · Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York. · Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. · University of Miami, Miami, Florida. · Panel Chair, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia. ·J Am Coll Radiol · Pubmed #29101979.

ABSTRACT: Breast cancer screening recommendations are based on risk factors. For average-risk women, screening mammography and/or digital breast tomosynthesis is recommended beginning at age 40. Ultrasound (US) may be useful as an adjunct to mammography for incremental cancer detection in women with dense breasts, but the balance between increased cancer detection and the increased risk of a false-positive examination should be considered in the decision. For intermediate-risk women, US or MRI may be indicated as an adjunct to mammography depending upon specific risk factors. For women at high risk due to prior mantle radiation between the ages of 10 to 30, mammography is recommended starting 8 years after radiation therapy but not before age 25. For women with a genetic predisposition, annual screening mammography is recommended beginning 10 years earlier than the affected relative at the time of diagnosis but not before age 30. Annual screening MRI is recommended in high-risk women as an adjunct to mammography. 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.

17 Guideline Breast Cancer Screening: Updated Recommendations of the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, Brazilian Breast Disease Society, and Brazilian Federation of Gynecological and Obstetrical Associations. 2017

Urban, Linei Augusta Brolini Dellê / Chala, Luciano Fernandes / Bauab, Selma di Pace / Schaefer, Marcela Brisighelli / Santos, Radiá Pereira Dos / Maranhão, Norma Medicis de Albuquerque / Kefalas, Ana Lucia / Kalaf, José Michel / Ferreira, Carlos Alberto Pecci / Canella, Ellyete de Oliveira / Peixoto, João Emílio / Amorim, Heverton Leal Ernesto de / Camargo Junior, Helio Sebastião Amâncio de. ·Coordinator of the National Mammography Commission, Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil. · Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem (CBR), São Paulo, SP, Brazil. · Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia (SBM), São Paulo, SP, Brazil. · Member of the National Mammography Commission, Representative of the Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Febrasgo), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. ·Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet · Pubmed #29036752.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

18 Guideline Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Care Ontario Focused Guideline Update. 2017

Van Poznak, Catherine / Somerfield, Mark R / Barlow, William E / Biermann, J Sybil / Bosserman, Linda D / Clemons, Mark J / Dhesy-Thind, Sukhbinder K / Dillmon, Melissa S / Eisen, Andrea / Frank, Elizabeth S / Jagsi, Reshma / Jimenez, Rachel / Theriault, Richard L / Vandenberg, Theodore A / Yee, Gary C / Moy, Beverly. ·Catherine Van Poznak, J. Sybil Biermann, and Reshma Jagsi, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI · Mark R. Somerfield, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA · William E. Barlow, Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA · Linda D. Bosserman, City of Hope, Duarte, CA · Mark J. Clemons, The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa · Sukhbinder K. Dhesy-Thind, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton · Andrea Eisen, Theodore A. Vandenberg, London Regional Cancer Program, London, Ontario, Canada · Melissa S. Dillmon, Harbin Clinic, Rome, GA · Elizabeth S. Frank, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · Rachel Jimenez, Beverly Moy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA · Richard L. Theriault, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · and Gary C. Yee, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #29035643.

ABSTRACT: Purpose To update, in collaboration with Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on the role of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in metastatic breast cancer. This focused update addressed the new data on intervals between dosing and the role of BMAs in control of bone pain. Methods A joint ASCO-CCO Update Committee conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify relevant studies. Results The Update Committee reviewed three phase III noninferiority trials of dosing intervals, one systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of de-escalation of BMAs, and two randomized trials of BMAs in control of pain secondary to bone metastases. Recommendations Patients with breast cancer who have evidence of bone metastases should be treated with BMAs. Options include denosumab, 120 mg subcutaneously, every 4 weeks; pamidronate, 90 mg intravenously, every 3 to 4 weeks; or zoledronic acid, 4 mg intravenously every 12 weeks or every 3 to 4 weeks. The analgesic effects of BMAs are modest, and they should not be used alone for bone pain. The Update Committee recommends that the current standard of care for supportive care and pain management-analgesia, adjunct therapies, radiotherapy, surgery, systemic anticancer therapy, and referral to supportive care and pain management-be applied. Evidence is insufficient to support the use of one BMA over another. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

19 Guideline Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Care Ontario Focused Guideline Update Summary. 2017

Van Poznak, Catherine / Somerfield, Mark R / Moy, Beverly. ·University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. ·J Oncol Pract · Pubmed #29035617.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

20 Guideline American College of Radiology-American Brachytherapy Society practice parameter for electronically generated low-energy radiation sources. 2017

Devlin, Phillip M / Gaspar, Laurie E / Buzurovic, Ivan / Demanes, D Jeffrey / Kasper, Michael E / Nag, Subir / Ouhib, Zoubir / Petit, Joshua H / Rosenthal, Seth A / Small, William / Wallner, Paul E / Hartford, Alan C. ·Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. Electronic address: pdevlin@bwh.harvard.edu. · University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO. · Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA. · UCLA Health System, Los Angeles, CA. · Lynn Regional Cancer Center, Boca Raton, FL. · Kaiser Permanente, Santa Clara, CA. · Lynn Regional Cancer Center, Delray Beach, FL. · Poudre Valley Hospital, Fort Collins, CO. · Roseville Radiation Oncology, Roseville, CA. · Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL. · National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD. · Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. ·Brachytherapy · Pubmed #28988661.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: This collaborative practice parameter technical standard has been created between the American College of Radiology and American Brachytherapy Society to guide the usage of electronically generated low energy radiation sources (ELSs). It refers to the use of electronic X-ray sources with peak voltages up to 120 kVp to deliver therapeutic radiation therapy. MAIN FINDINGS: The parameter provides a guideline for utilizing ELS, including patient selection and consent, treatment planning, and delivery processes. The parameter reviews the published clinical data with regard to ELS results in skin, breast, and other cancers. CONCLUSIONS: This technical standard recommends appropriate qualifications of the involved personnel. The parameter reviews the technical issues relating to equipment specifications as well as patient and personnel safety. Regarding suggestions for educational programs with regard to this parameter,it is suggested that the training level for clinicians be equivalent to that for other radiation therapies. It also suggests that ELS must be done using the same standards of quality and safety as those in place for other forms of radiation therapy.

21 Guideline Quality indicators in breast cancer care: An update from the EUSOMA working group. 2017

Biganzoli, Laura / Marotti, Lorenza / Hart, Christopher D / Cataliotti, Luigi / Cutuli, Bruno / Kühn, Thorsten / Mansel, Robert E / Ponti, Antonio / Poortmans, Philip / Regitnig, Peter / van der Hage, Jos A / Wengström, Yvonne / Rosselli Del Turco, Marco. ·Nuovo Ospedale di Prato, Prato, Italy. Electronic address: laura.biganzoli@uslcentro.toscana.it. · Eusoma, Florence, Italy. · Nuovo Ospedale di Prato, Prato, Italy; St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. · Bccert and Senonetwork, Florence, Italy. · Institut du Cancer Courlancy, Reims, France. · Klinikum Esslingen, Esslingen, Germany. · Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom. · CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy. · Institut Curie, Paris, France. · Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. · Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, The Netherland Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. · Radiology, Rome, Italy. ·Eur J Cancer · Pubmed #28963914.

ABSTRACT: In 2010, EUSOMA published a position paper, describing a set of benchmark quality indicators (QIs) that could be adopted by breast centres to allow standardised auditing and quality assurance and to establish an agreed minimum standard of care. Towards the end of 2014, EUSOMA decided to update the paper on QIs to consider and incorporate new scientific knowledge in the field. Several new QIs have been included to address the need for improved follow-up care of patients following primary treatments. With regard to the management of elderly patients, considering the complexity, the expert group decided that, for some specific quality indicators, if centres fail to meet the minimum standard, older patients will be excluded from analysis, provided that reasons for non-adherence to the QI are specified in the clinical chart and are identified at the review of the clinical records. In this way, high standards are promoted, but centres are able to identify and account for the effect of non-standard treatment in the elderly. In the paper, there is no QI for outcome measurements, such as relapse rate or overall survival. However, it is hoped that this will be developed in time as the databases mature and user experience increases. All breast centres are required to record outcome data as accurately and comprehensively as possible to allow this to occur. In the paper, different initiatives undertaken at international and national level to audit quality of care through a set of QIs have been mentioned.

22 Guideline Appendix 2: Advanced breast cancer: MCBS eUpdate published online 25 April 2017 (www.esmo.org/Guidelines/Breast-Cancer). 2017

Anonymous4940918. · ·Ann Oncol · Pubmed #28881923.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

23 Guideline Practice Bulletin No 182: Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. 2017

Anonymous570917. · ·Obstet Gynecol · Pubmed #28832484.

ABSTRACT: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is an inherited cancer-susceptibility syndrome characterized by multiple family members with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both. Based on the contemporary understanding of the origins and management of ovarian cancer and for simplicity in this document, ovarian cancer also refers to fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer. Clinical genetic testing for gene mutations allows more precise identification of those women who are at an increased risk of inherited breast cancer and ovarian cancer. For these individuals, screening and prevention strategies can be instituted to reduce their risks. Obstetrician-gynecologists play an important role in the identification and management of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. If an obstetrician-gynecologist or other gynecologic care provider does not have the necessary knowledge or expertise in cancer genetics to counsel a patient appropriately, referral to a genetic counselor, gynecologic or medical oncologist, or other genetics specialist should be considered (1). More genes are being discovered that impart varying risks of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and other types of cancer, and new technologies are being developed for genetic testing. This Practice Bulletin focuses on the primary genetic mutations associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, BRCA1 and BRCA2, but also will briefly discuss some of the other genes that have been implicated.

24 Guideline Practice Bulletin No. 182 Summary: Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. 2017

Anonymous490917. · ·Obstet Gynecol · Pubmed #28832475.

ABSTRACT: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome is an inherited cancer-susceptibility syndrome characterized by multiple family members with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or both. Based on the contemporary understanding of the origins and management of ovarian cancer and for simplicity in this document, ovarian cancer also refers to fallopian tube cancer and primary peritoneal cancer. Clinical genetic testing for gene mutations allows more precise identification of those women who are at an increased risk of inherited breast cancer and ovarian cancer. For these individuals, screening and prevention strategies can be instituted to reduce their risks. Obstetrician-gynecologists play an important role in the identification and management of women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. If an obstetrician-gynecologist or other gynecologic care provider does not have the necessary knowledge or expertise in cancer genetics to counsel a patient appropriately, referral to a genetic counselor, gynecologic or medical oncologist, or other genetics specialist should be considered (1). More genes are being discovered that impart varying risks of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and other types of cancer, and new technologies are being developed for genetic testing. This Practice Bulletin focuses on the primary genetic mutations associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome, BRCA1 and BRCA2, but also will briefly discuss some of the other genes that have been implicated.

25 Guideline Considerations for Clinicians in the Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: Recommendations from a Multidisciplinary Expert ASBrS Panel : Part 1: Definitions, Assessments, Education, and Future Directions. 2017

McLaughlin, Sarah A / Staley, Alicia C / Vicini, Frank / Thiruchelvam, Paul / Hutchison, Nancy A / Mendez, Jane / MacNeill, Fiona / Rockson, Stanley G / DeSnyder, Sarah M / Klimberg, Suzanne / Alatriste, Michael / Boccardo, Francesco / Smith, Mark L / Feldman, Sheldon M. ·Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. Mclaughlin.sarah@mayo.edu. · Patient Advocate, Akari Health, Boston, MA, USA. · Radiation Oncology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, USA. · Imperial College Healthcare, London, UK. · Courage Kenny Rehabilitation Institute of AllinaHealth, Minneapolis, MN, USA. · Miami Cancer Institute, Miami, FL, USA. · Association of Breast Surgery Great Britain and Ireland, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK. · Center for Lymphatic and Venous Disorders, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. · Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. · Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute, Little Rock, AR, USA. · Lymphedema Alliance of New York, New York, NY, USA. · Department of Surgery, Unit of Lymphatic Surgery - S. Martino University Hospital, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. · Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, Northwell Health Cancer Institute, Lake Success, NY, USA. · Division of Breast Surgery and Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, The University Hospital for the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. ·Ann Surg Oncol · Pubmed #28766232.

ABSTRACT: -- No abstract --

Next