4.2 Article

Practice-Changing Perspectives regarding Systemic Therapy in Early Breast Cancer: Opinions of German Experts regarding the 17th St. Gallen International Consensus Conference

Journal

BREAST CARE
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 336-345

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000517501

Keywords

St. Gallen Consensus 2021; Early breast cancer; (Neo)adjuvant systemic treatment; Targeted therapy

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca GmbH
  2. Daiichi-Sankyo Deutschland GmbH
  3. Exact Sciences Deutschland GmbH
  4. Lilly Deutschland GmbH
  5. Mylan Germany GmbH
  6. Pierre Fabre Pharma GmbH
  7. Veracyte, Inc

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article introduces the general topic and voting results of the 17th St. Gallen International Consensus Conference, emphasizing the importance of considering the individual cancer situation in treatment decisions. It also highlights the significance of the German evidence-based treatment guidelines in interpreting the voting results, with a focus on systemic treatment.
The general topic of this year's 17th St. Gallen (SG) International Consensus Conference on the treatment of patients with early breast cancer (SG-BCC) was Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer. This topic considers that each treatment decision must also consider the cancer-specific situation of the individual patient. This year, the votes of the SG-BCC were again discussed taking into account the multidisciplinary German S3 Guidelines and the recommendations of the Breast Cancer Working Group of the AGO (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie; AGO Mamma). As the international panel of the SG-BCC consists of experts from different countries, the votes do represent an international cross-section of opinions. Therefore, it is useful to discuss the voting results with respect to the German evidence-based treatment guidelines. This publication focuses mainly on systemic treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available