Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 1508–1516 | Cite as

Recommendations from an International Consensus Conference on the Current Status and Future of Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Primary Breast Cancer

  • Manfred KaufmannEmail author
  • Gunter von Minckwitz
  • Elefhterios P. Mamounas
  • David Cameron
  • Lisa A. Carey
  • Massimo Cristofanilli
  • Carsten Denkert
  • Wolfgang Eiermann
  • Michael Gnant
  • Jay R. Harris
  • Thomas Karn
  • Cornelia Liedtke
  • Davide Mauri
  • Roman Rouzier
  • Eugen Ruckhaeberle
  • Vladimir Semiglazov
  • W. Fraser Symmans
  • Andrew Tutt
  • Lajos Pusztai
Breast Oncology


The use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) for the treatment of primary breast cancer has constantly increased, especially in trials of new therapeutic regimens. In the 1980 s, NST was shown to substantially improve breast-conserving surgery rates and was first typically used for patients with inoperable locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Investigators have since also used NST as an in vivo test for chemosensitivity by assessing pathologic complete response. Today, by using pathologic response and other biomarkers as intermediate end points, results from trials of new regimens and therapies that use NST are aimed to precede and anticipate the results from larger adjuvant trials. In 2003, a panel of representatives from various breast cancer clinical research groups was first convened in Biedenkopf to formulate recommendations on the use of NST. The obtained consensus was updated in two subsequent meetings in 2004 and 2006. The most recent conference on recommendations on the use of NST took place in 2010 and forms the basis of this report.


Breast Cancer Trastuzumab Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Inflammatory Breast Cancer Prophylactic Contralateral Mastectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank the independent BANSS Foundation, Biedenkopf, Germany, for financial support, and the GBG GmbH, Neu Isenburg, Germany for logistical support of the meeting. All members of the panel had input in the discussion and formulation of the article. This consensus symposium received financial support from the BANSS Foundation, a nonprofit body based in Biedenkopf an der Lahn, Germany. Both the symposium and the preparation of this article was conducted independent of the pharmaceutical industry. The report was drafted in its entirety by the meeting participants without any paid assistance.


  1. 1.
    Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives, 2006. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1927–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1940–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caudle AS, Hunt KK. The neoadjuvant approach in breast cancer treatment: it is not just about chemotherapy anymore. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23:31–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Von Minckwitz G, Kaufmann M, Kuemmel S, et al., for the GBG and AGO-B Study Groups. Correlation of various pathologic complete response (pCR) definitions with long-term outcome and the prognostic value of pCR in various breast cancer subtypes: results from the German neoadjuvant meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(Suppl.):1028.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montagna E, Bagnardi V, Rotmensz N, et al. Pathological complete response after preoperative systemic therapy and outcome: relevance of clinical and biologic baseline features. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124:689–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaufmann M, Pusztai L; Biedenkopf Expert Panel Members. Use of standard markers and incorporation of molecular markers into breast cancer therapy. Cancer. 2011;117:1575–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson RM, Bondy M, Yang W, et al. Inflammatory breast cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60:351–75.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boughey JC, Wagner J, Garrett BJ, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive lobular carcinoma may not improve rates of breast conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1606–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boughey JC, Peintinger F, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Impact of preoperative versus postoperative chemotherapy on the extent and number of surgical procedures in patients treated in randomized clinical trials for breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2006;244:464–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim SI, Sohn J, Koo JS, Park SH, Park HS, Park BW. Molecular subtypes and tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;79:324–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huober J, von Minckwitz G, Denkert C, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124:133–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Penault-Llorca F, Abrial C, Raoelfils I, et al. Comparison of the prognostic significance of Chevallier and Sataloff’s pathologic classifications after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of operable breast cancer. Hum Pathol. 2008;39:1221–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S, et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2650–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gralow JR, Burstein HJ, Wood W, et al. Preoperative therapy in invasive breast cancer: pathologic assessment and systemic therapy issues in operable disease. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:814–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, Fisher B, Mamounas E, Wolmark N. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy: findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel (NSABP) protocol B-18. Cancer. 2002;95:681–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellis MJ, Tao Y, Luo J, et al. Outcome prediction for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer based on postneoadjuvant endocrine therapy tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1380–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, Hicks DG, Lester S, Love R, Mangu PB, McShane L, Miller K, Osborne CK, Paik S, Perlmutter J, Rhodes A, Sasano H, Schwartz JN, Sweep FC, Taube S, Torlakovic EE, Valenstein P, Viale G, Visscher D, Wheeler T, Williams RB, Wittliff JL, Wolff AC; American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(7):e48–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:118–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Del Frate C, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:1371–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schott AF, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, et al. Clinical and radiological assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;92:231–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roubidoux MA, LeCarpentier GL, Fowlkes JB, et al. Sonographic evaluation of early-stage breast cancers that undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:885–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang WT, Le-Petross HT, Macapinlac H, et al. Inflammatory breast cancer: PET/CT, MRI, mammography, and sonography findings. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109:417–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Deurzen CH, Vriens BE, Tjan-Heijnen VC, et al. Accuracy of sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:3124–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwartz GF, Tannebaum JE, Jernigan AM, Palazzo JP. Axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 2010;116:1243–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Budman DR. Dose and schedule as determinants of outcomes in chemotherapy for breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2004;31(6 Suppl. 15):3–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caudle AS, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hunt KK, et al. Predictors of tumor progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1821–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rouzier R, Pusztai L, Delaloge S, et al. Nomograms to predict pathologic complete response and metastasis-free survival after preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8331–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee JK, Coutant C, Kim YC, et al. Prospective comparison of clinical and genomic multivariate predictors of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:711–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tabchy A, Valero V, Vidaurre T, et al. Evaluation of a 30-gene paclitaxel, fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy response predictor in a multicenter randomized trial in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:5351–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    von Minckwitz G, Kaufmann M, Kümmel S, et al. Integrated meta-analysis on 6402 patients with early breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane ± trastuzumab containing chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl. 2):79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buzdar AU, Valero V, Ibrahim NK, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy with paclitaxel followed by 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and concurrent trastuzumab in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer: an update of the initial randomized study population and data of additional patients treated with the same regimen. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:228–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet. 2010;375(9712):377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guarneri V, Frassoldati A, Bottini A, et al. Safety and activity report of a randomized phase II trial of preoperative anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus lapatinib, trastuzumab or both in HER2 positive breast cancer: CHERLOB Trial. Cancer Res. 2009;69(Suppl. 3):1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rayson D, Suter T, van der Vegt S, et al. Interim results of BACH: randomized phase ii trial evaluating the safety of two chemotherapy regimens as adjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer: PLD + cyclophosphamide + trastuzumab (PLD + C + H), or doxorubicin + cyclophosphomide (A + C), each followed by paclitaxel + trastuzumab (T + H). Cancer Res. 2009;69(24 Suppl. 3):2085.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mathew J, Asgeirsson KS, Jackson LR, Cheung KL, Robertson JF. Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment in primary breast cancer—review of literature. Breast. 2009;18:339–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Smith IE, Dowsett M, Ebbs SR, et al.; IMPACT Trialists Group. Neoadjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer with anastrozole, tamoxifen, or both in combination: the Immediate Preoperative Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or Combined with Tamoxifen (IMPACT) multicenter double-blind randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:5108–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eiermann W, Paepke S, Appfelstaedt J, et al.; Letrozole Neo-Adjuvant Breast Cancer Study Group. Preoperative treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer patients with letrozole: a randomized double-blind multicenter study. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:1527–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Semiglazov VF, Semiglazov VV, Dashyan GA, et al. Phase 2 randomized trial of primary endocrine therapy versus chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2007;110:244–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cataliotti L, Buzdar AU, Noguchi S, et al. Comparison of anastrozole versus tamoxifen as preoperative therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer: the Pre-Operative “Arimidex” Compared to Tamoxifen (PROACT) trial. Cancer. 2006;106:2095–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ellis MJ, Buzdar A, Unzeitig GW, et al. ACOSOG Z1031: A randomized phase II trial comparing exemestane, letrozole, and anastrozole in postmenopausal women with clinical stage II/III estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (abstract LBA513). J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(Suppl.):18 s.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fourquet A, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Kirova YM, Sigal-Zafrani B, Asselain B; Institut Curie Breast Cancer Study Group; Institut Curie Breast Ovary Cancer Risk Study Group. Familial breast cancer: clinical response to induction chemotherapy or radiotherapy related to BRCA1/2 mutations status. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32:127–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pierce LJ, Phillips KA, Griffith KA, et al. Local therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with operable breast cancer: comparison of breast conservation and mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121:389–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Byrski T, Gronwald J, Huzarski T, et al. Pathologic complete response rates in young women with BRCA1-positive breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:375–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Silver DP, Richardson AL, Eklund AC, et al. Efficacy of neoadjuvant cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1145–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fong PC, Boss DS, Yap TA, et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:123–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tutt A, Robson M, Garber JE, et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2010;24;376(9737):235–44.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Loibl S, von Minckwitz G, Gwyn K, et al. Breast carcinoma during pregnancy. International recommendations from an expert meeting. Cancer. 2006;106:237–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, et al. Neoadjuvant pertuzumab (P) and trastuzumab (H): antitumor and safety analysis of a randomized phase II study (“NeoSphere”). Cancer Res. 2011;70:S3–2.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, et al. First results of the NeoALTTO Trial (BIG 01-06/EGF 106903): a phase III, randomized, open label, neoadjuvant study of lapatinib, trastuzumab, and their combination plus paclitaxel in women with HER2-positive primary breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2011;70:S3–3.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kaufmann M, Morrow M, von Minckwitz G, Harris JR; Biedenkopf Expert Panel Members. Locoregional treatment of primary breast cancer: consensus recommendations from an international expert panel. Cancer. 2010;116:1184–91.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, et al. Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:3219–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dawood S, Merajver SD, Viens P, et al. International expert panel on inflammatory breast cancer: consensus statement for standardized diagnosis and treatment. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:515–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Smith BD, Bentzen SM, Correa CR, et al. Fractionation for whole breast irradiation: an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guideline. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;22:515–23.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mamounas EP, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al. Predictors of locoregional failure (LRF) in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC): results from combined analysis of NSABP B-18 and NSABP B-27 (abstract 90). Presented at the 2010 ASCO Breast Cancer Symposium.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Buchholz TA, Tucker SL, Masullo L, et al. Predictors of local-regional recurrence after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and mastectomy without radiation. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:17–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pusztai L, Viale G, Kelly CM, Hudis CA. Estrogen and HER-2 receptor discordance between primary breast cancer and metastasis. Oncologist. 2010;15:1164–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Schippinger W, et al. Endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360:679–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Coleman RE, Winter MC, Cameron D, et al.; AZURE (BIG01/04) Investigators. The effects of adding zoledronic acid to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on tumour response: exploratory evidence for direct anti-tumour activity in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:1099–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Aft R, Naughton M, Trinkaus K, et al. Effect of zoledronic acid on disseminated tumour cells in women with locally advanced breast cancer: an open label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:421–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Debled M, Mauriac L. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy: are we barking up the right tree? Ann Oncol. 2010;21:675–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hutcheon AW, Heys SD, Sarkar TK; Aberdeen Breast Group. Neoadjuvant docetaxel in locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;79(Suppl. 1):S19–S24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Untch M, Möbus V, Kuhn W, et al. Intensive dose-dense compared with conventionally scheduled preoperative chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2938–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Frasci G, D’Aiuto G, Comella P, et al. Preoperative weekly cisplatin, epirubicin, and paclitaxel (PET) improves prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer patients: an update of the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) randomised trial 9908. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:707–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet. 2010;375:377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3676–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bear HD, Anderson S, Smith RE, et al. Sequential preoperative or postoperative docetaxel added to preoperative doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for operable breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2019–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Evans TR, Yellowlees A, Foster E, et al. Phase III randomized trial of doxorubicin and docetaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as primary medical therapy in women with breast cancer: an anglo-celtic cooperative oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2988–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Theriault RL, et al. Prospective evaluation of paclitaxel versus combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:3412–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Baldini E, Gardin G, Giannessi PG, et al. Accelerated versus standard cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and 5-fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil: a randomized phase III trial in locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:227–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Smith IE, A’Hern RP, Coombes GA, et al. TOPIC Trial Group. A novel continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy regimen compared with conventional chemotherapy in the neo-adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: 5 year results of the TOPIC trial. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:751–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chua S, Smith IE, A'Hern RP, et al. TOPIC Trial Group. Neoadjuvant vinorelbine/epirubicin (VE) versus standard adriamycin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in operable breast cancer: analysis of response and tolerability in a randomised phase III trial (TOPIC 2). Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1435–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Kaufmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gunter von Minckwitz
    • 2
  • Elefhterios P. Mamounas
    • 3
  • David Cameron
    • 4
  • Lisa A. Carey
    • 5
  • Massimo Cristofanilli
    • 6
  • Carsten Denkert
    • 7
  • Wolfgang Eiermann
    • 8
  • Michael Gnant
    • 9
  • Jay R. Harris
    • 10
  • Thomas Karn
    • 1
  • Cornelia Liedtke
    • 11
  • Davide Mauri
    • 12
  • Roman Rouzier
    • 13
  • Eugen Ruckhaeberle
    • 1
  • Vladimir Semiglazov
    • 14
  • W. Fraser Symmans
    • 15
  • Andrew Tutt
    • 16
  • Lajos Pusztai
    • 17
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics and Breast UnitGoethe UniversityFrankfurtGermany
  2. 2.German Breast GroupNeu IsenburgGermany
  3. 3.Aultman Cancer CenterCantonUSA
  4. 4.Edinburgh Cancer Research CenterUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  5. 5.Division of Hematology-OncologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  6. 6.Department of Medical OncologyFox Chase Cancer CenterPhiladelphiaUSA
  7. 7.Institute of PathologyUniversity Hospital CharitéBerlinGermany
  8. 8.Women’s HospitalRed Cross ClinicsMunichGermany
  9. 9.Department of SurgeryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  10. 10.Department of Radiation OncologyDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  11. 11.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital MuensterMuensterGermany
  12. 12.Department of Medical OncologyGeneral Hospital of LamiaLamiaGreece
  13. 13.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHôpital TenonParisFrance
  14. 14.N.N. Petrov Research Institute of OncologySt. PetersburgRussia
  15. 15.Department of PathologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  16. 16.Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research UnitGuy’s Hospital Campus, King’s College London School of MedicineLondonUK
  17. 17.Department of Medical OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations