Volkmar Müller , Thomas Bachelot , Giuseppe Curigliano , Evandro de Azambuja , Julia Furtner , Jens Gempt , Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa , Katarzyna J. Jerzak , Emilie Le Rhun , Carlo Palmieri , Gabriella Pravettoni , Cristina Saura , Rupert Bartsch
{"title":"Expert consensus on the prevention of brain metastases in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer","authors":"Volkmar Müller , Thomas Bachelot , Giuseppe Curigliano , Evandro de Azambuja , Julia Furtner , Jens Gempt , Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa , Katarzyna J. Jerzak , Emilie Le Rhun , Carlo Palmieri , Gabriella Pravettoni , Cristina Saura , Rupert Bartsch","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102860","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer have a significant risk of developing brain metastases (BrM), which have detrimental effects on survival outcomes and quality of life. Although there are several systemic treatment options available that may delay the appearance of BrM and secondary progression of previously treated BrM, there are still substantial unmet needs for this patient population and primary prevention remains elusive.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A group of experts created consensus statements, through a modified Delphi process, to bridge the gap between current unmet needs, available evidence, and international guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The steering committee reviewed all relevant literature and formed research questions to be answered by the subsequent consensus statements. In total, 61 contributors provided feedback on the consensus statements, with 34 statements reaching agreement out of the 55 statements that were voted on altogether. Statements with consensus aimed to define BrM primary and secondary prevention, screening procedures, assessment of symptoms, treatment efficacy, and preventing the occurrence and progression of BrM, while acknowledging the possibilities and limitations in daily clinical practice. Some statements did not reach agreement for a variety of reasons, mostly due to lack of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The consensus statements outlined in this publication provide a point of reference for daily clinical practice and can act as recommendations for clinical trial procedures and future guidelines.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9537,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment reviews","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 102860"},"PeriodicalIF":9.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737224001890","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Patients with HER2-positive breast cancer have a significant risk of developing brain metastases (BrM), which have detrimental effects on survival outcomes and quality of life. Although there are several systemic treatment options available that may delay the appearance of BrM and secondary progression of previously treated BrM, there are still substantial unmet needs for this patient population and primary prevention remains elusive.
Methods
A group of experts created consensus statements, through a modified Delphi process, to bridge the gap between current unmet needs, available evidence, and international guidelines.
Results
The steering committee reviewed all relevant literature and formed research questions to be answered by the subsequent consensus statements. In total, 61 contributors provided feedback on the consensus statements, with 34 statements reaching agreement out of the 55 statements that were voted on altogether. Statements with consensus aimed to define BrM primary and secondary prevention, screening procedures, assessment of symptoms, treatment efficacy, and preventing the occurrence and progression of BrM, while acknowledging the possibilities and limitations in daily clinical practice. Some statements did not reach agreement for a variety of reasons, mostly due to lack of evidence.
Conclusions
The consensus statements outlined in this publication provide a point of reference for daily clinical practice and can act as recommendations for clinical trial procedures and future guidelines.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Treatment Reviews
Journal Overview:
International journal focused on developments in cancer treatment research
Publishes state-of-the-art, authoritative reviews to keep clinicians and researchers informed
Regular Sections in Each Issue:
Comments on Controversy
Tumor Reviews
Anti-tumor Treatments
New Drugs
Complications of Treatment
General and Supportive Care
Laboratory/Clinic Interface
Submission and Editorial System:
Online submission and editorial system for Cancer Treatment Reviews