Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for systemic treatment of breast cancer, 2015 edition

Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG), Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, Darby S, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomized tirals. Lancet. 2011;378(9793):771–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, Gray R, Arriagada R, Raina V, for the Adjuvant Tamoxifen: Longer Against Shorter (ATLAS) Collaborative Group, et al. Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet. 2012;381(9869):805–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Francis PA, Regan MM, Fleming GF, Láng I, Ciruelos E, Bellet M, et al. Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(5):436–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S, Robert NJ, Muss HB, Piccart MJ, et al. Randomized trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA.17. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(17):1262–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gnant M, Mlineritsch B, Stoeger H, Luschin-Ebengreuth G, Heck D, Menzel C, Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group, Vienna, Austria, et al. Adjuvant endocrine therapy plus zoledronic acid in premenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer: 62-month follow-up from the ABCSG-12 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):631–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pagani O, Regan MM, Walley BA, Fleming GF, Colleoni M, Láng I, et al. Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(2):107–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Fisher ER, Mamounas E, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 1999;353(9169):1993–2000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Houghton J, George WD, Cuzick J, Duggan C, Fentiman IS, Spittle M, UK Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research; Ductal Carcinoma in situ Working Party; DCIS trialists in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2003;362(9378):95–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodwin A, Parker S, Ghersi D, Wilcken N. Post-operative radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11:CD000563.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Noguchi S, Koyama H, Uchino J, Abe R, Miura S, Sugimachi K, et al. Postoperative adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen, tegafur plus uracil, or both in women with node-negative breast cancer: a pooled analysis of six randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(10):2172–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Park Y, Okamura K, Mitsuyama S, Saito T, Koh J, Kyono S, et al. Uracil-tegafur and tamoxifen vs cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and tamoxifen in post-operative adjuvant therapy for stage I, II, or III A lymph node-positive breast cancer: a comparative study. Br J Cancer. 2009;101(4):598–604.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Watanabe T, Sano M, Takashima S, Kitaya T, Tokuda Y, Yoshimoto M, et al. Oral uracil and tegafur compared with classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil as postoperative chemotherapy in patients with node-negative, high-risk breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Study for Breast Cancer 01 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(9):1368–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ohashi Y, Watanabe T, Sano M, Koyama H, Inaji H, Suzuki T. Efficacy of oral tegafur-uracil (UFT) as adjuvant therapy as compared with classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (CMF) in early breast cancer: a pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials (N.SAS-BC 01 trial and CUBC trial). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(3):633–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Muss HB, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Theodoulou M, Mauer AM, Kornblith AB, CALGB investigators, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in older women with early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(20):2055–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Torri V, Ghislandi E, Penna A, Pistotti V, et al. Cytotoxic and hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of published randomized trials involving 31,510 women. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(10):3439–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghersi D, Wilcken N, Simes RJ. A systematic review of taxane-containing regimens for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(3):293–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Bernardo P, Ingle JN, Martino S, Rowinsky EK, et al. Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer:an intergroup trial (E1193). J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(4):588–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Takashima T, Mukai H, Hara F, Matsubara N, Saito T, Takano T, et al. Taxanes versus S-1 as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (SELECT BC): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(1):90–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cardoso F, Costa A, Norton L, Cameron D, Cufer T, Fallowfield L, et al. 1st International consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 1). Breast. 2012;21:242–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Balduzzi S, Mantarro S, Guarneri V, et al. Trastuzumab-containing regimens for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD006242.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaufman B, Mackey JR, Clemens MR, Bapsy PP, Vaid A, Wardley A, et al. Trastuzumab plus anastrozole versus anastrozole alone for the treatment of postmenopausal women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III TAnDEM study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(33):5529–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnston S, Pippen J Jr, Pivot X, Lichinitser M, Sadeghi S, Dieras V, et al. Lapatinib combined with letrozole versus letrozole and placebo as first-line therapy for postmenopausal hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(33):5538–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wapnir IL, Aebi S, Geyer CE, et al. A randomized clinical trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for radically resected locoregional relapse of breast cancer: IBCSG. 27-02, BIG 1-02, and NSABP B-37. Clin Breast Cancer. 2008;8:287–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wapnir IL, Anderson SJ, Mamounas EP, et al. Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project node-positive adjuvant breast cancer trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2028–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Anderson SJ, Wapnir I, Dignam JJ, et al. Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in patients treated by breast-conserving therapy in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocols of node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2466–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Waeber M, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Dietrich D, et al. Adjuvant therapy after excision and radiation of isolated postmastectomy locoregional breast cancer recurrence: definitive results of a phase III randomized trial (SAKK 23/82) comparing tamoxifen with observation. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:1215–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Aebi S, Gelber S, Anderson SJ, Lang I, Robidoux A, Martin M, et al. Chemotherapy for isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer (CALOR): a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:156–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Di Saverio S, Gutierrez J, Avisar E. A retrospective review with long term follow up of 11,400 cases of pure mucinous breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(3):541–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Libby A, Allred DC, Elledge RM. Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):1442–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghabach B, Anderson WF, Curtis RE, Huycke MM, Lavigne JA, Dores GM. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast in the United States (1977–2006): a population-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(4):R54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Vranic S, Bender R, Palazzo J, Gatalica Z. A review of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast with emphasis on its molecular and genetic characteristics. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(3):301–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ridolfi RL, Rosen PP, Port A, Kinne D, Mike V. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathologic study with 10 year follow-up. Cancer. 1977;40(4):1365–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Huober J, Gelber S, Goldhirsch A, Coates AS, Viale G, Ohlschlegel C, et al. Prognosis of medullary breast cancer: analysis of 13 International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trials. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(11):2843–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Vranic S, Schmitt F, Sapino A, Costa JL, Reddy S, Castro M, et al. Apocrine carcinoma of the breast: a comprehensive review. Histol Histopathol. 2013;28(11):1393–409.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Orvieto E, Maiorano E, Bottiglieri L, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Galimberti V, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: results of an analysis of 530 cases from a single institution. Cancer. 2008;113(7):1511–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E, Gusterson BA, Price KN, Gelber RD, et al. Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(18):3006–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(23):3726–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Yamauchi H, Nakagawa C, Yamashige S. Societal cost-effectiveness analysis of the 21-gene assay in estrogen-receptor-positive, lymph-node-negative early-stage breast cancer in Japan. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. van’t Veer H, Dai LJ, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415(6871):530–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):1160–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Naoi Y, Kishi K, Tanei T, Tsunashima R, Tominaga N, Baba Y, et al. Development of 95-gene classifier as a powerful predictor of recurrences in node-negative and ER-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;128(3):633–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Naoi Y, Kishi K, Tsunashima R, Shimazu K, Shimomura A, Maruyama N, et al. Comparison of efficacy of 95-gene and 21-gene classifier (Oncotype DX) for prediction of recurrence in ER-positive and node-negative breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(2):299–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Goetz MP, Rae JM, Suman VJ, Safgren SL, Ames MM, Visscher DW, et al. Pharmacogenetics of tamoxifen biotransformation is associated with clinical outcomes of efficacy and hot flashes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(36):9312–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lim HS, Ju Lee H, Seok Lee K, Sook Lee E, Jang IJ, Ro J. Clinical implications of CYP2D6 genotypes predictive of tamoxifen pharmacokinetics in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(25):3837–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kiyotani K, Mushiroda T, Imamura CK, Hosono N, Tsunoda T, Kubo M, et al. Significant effect of polymorphisms in CYP2D6 and ABCC2 on clinical outcomes of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(8):1287–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Okishiro M, Taguchi T, Jin Kim S, Shimazu K, Tamaki Y, Noguchi S. Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2D6 10 and CYP2C19 2, 3 are not associated with prognosis, endometrial thickness, or bone mineral density in Japanese breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. Cancer. 2009;115(5):952–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Xu Y, Sun Y, Yao L, Shi L, Wu Y, Ouyang T, et al. Association between CYP2D6 10 genotype and survival of breast cancer patients receiving tamoxifen treatment. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(8):1423–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Toyama T, Yamashita H, Sugiura H, Kondo N, Iwase H, Fujii Y. No association between CYP2D6 10 genotype and survival of node-negative Japanese breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant tamoxifen treatment. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2009;39(10):651–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dezentjéé VO, van Schaik RH, Vletter-Bogaartz JM, van der Straaten T, Wessels JA, Kranenbarg EM, et al. CYP2D6 genotype in relation to tamoxifen efficacy in a Dutch cohort of the tamoxifen exemestane adjuvant multinational (TEAM) trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(2):363–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rae JM, Drury S, Hayes DF, Stearns V, Thibert JN, Haynes BP, et al. CYP2D6 and UGT2B7 genotype and risk of recurrence in tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(6):452–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Regan MM, Leyland-Jones B, Bouzyk M, Pagani O, Tang W, Kammler R, et al. CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen response in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: the breast international group 1-98 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(6):441–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Goetz MP, Sun JX, Suman VJ, Silva GO, Perou CM, Nakamura Y, et al. Loss of Heterozygosity at the CYP2D6 Locus in Breast Cancer: implications for germline pharmacogenetic studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;107(2). doi:10.1093/jnci/dju401.

  55. Ratain MJ, Nakamura Y, Cox NJ. CYP2D6 genotype and tamoxifen activity: understanding interstudy variability in methodological quality. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;94(2):185–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Province MA, Goetz MP, Brauch H, Flockhart DA, Hebert JM, Whaley R, International Tamoxifen Pharmacogenomics Consortium, et al. CYP2D6 genotype and adjuvant tamoxifen: meta-analysis of heterogeneous study populations. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95(2):216–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Berry D. CYP2D6 genotyping and the use of tamoxifen in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(17):1267–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bines J, Oleske DM, Cobleigh MA. Ovarian function in premenopausal women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1718–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Blumenfeld Z, Avivi I, Linn S, et al. Prevention of irreversible chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage in young women with lymphoma by a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist in parallel to chemotherapy. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1620–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Del Mastro L, Boni L, Michelotti A, et al. Effect of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin on the occurrence of chemotherapy-induced early menopause in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2011;306:269–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Badawy A, Elnashar A, El-Ashry M, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists for prevention of chemotherapy-induced ovarian damage: prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:694–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

TT received research funding from Takeda, Daiichi-Sankyo and Novartis Pharma. MT received honoraria from AstraZeneca. YY received honoraria from Chugai pharmaceutical and Novartis Pharma, and research funding from Taiho Pharmaceutical. FH received honoraria from Chugai pharmaceutical, and received research funding from Eisai. JT received honoraria from Eisai. YI received manuscript fees paid from Chugai, Eisai and Novartis, and research funding from Novartis, Chugai, Parexel, Eisai, Sanofi, Taiho, EPS, Daiichi-Sankyo and Boehringer Ingelheim. HM received honoraria from Chugai pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Novartis Pharma, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim Japan and Ono Pharmaceutical and received research funding from Chugai pharmaceutical, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Nippon Kayaku, Novartis Pharma, Pfeizer Japan and Sanofi.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomohiko Aihara.

Additional information

This article is an English digest of the Clinical Practice Guideline of Breast Cancer 2015, published by Kanehara & Co., Ltd. Details of recommendation grades were explained in the previous report (Breast Cancer. 2015;22:1–4).

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aihara, T., Toyama, T., Takahashi, M. et al. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guideline for systemic treatment of breast cancer, 2015 edition. Breast Cancer 23, 329–342 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0670-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0670-y

Keywords

Navigation