Expert consensus on the prevention of brain metastases in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Müller V] The University Hospital, Hamburg, Germany. [Bachelot T] Centre Leon Berard, Lyon, France. [Curigliano G] Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. Division of Early Drug Development, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. [de Azambuja E] Institut Jules Bordet, l’Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B), Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Brussels, Belgium. [Furtner J] Research Center for Medical Image Analysis and Artificial Intelligence (MIAAI), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Danube Private University, Krems, Austria. [Gempt J] Department of Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. [Saura C] Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2025-03-10T13:07:17Z

2025-03-10T13:07:17Z

2024

2025-01



Abstract

Brain metastasis; Breast cancer; Prevention


Metástasis cerebral; Cáncer de mama; Prevención


Metàstasi cerebral; Càncer de mama; Prevenció


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.


This work was funded by Seagen who had a role in organising the consensus meetings and outputs; however, they did not take part in the literature grading, consensus surveys or interpretation of results.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

Elsevier

Related items

Cancer Treatment Reviews;132

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102860

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)