Abstract
Background. Staging procedures used to detect metastatic breast cancer at the time of diagnosis are bone scan (BS), chest X-ray (CXR), liver ultrasonography (LUS) and laboratory parameters (LP). These procedures are expensive and not all patients need them. We aimed to identify groups of patients with different risks for metastatic disease. Methods. We reviewed data from 1,218 consecutive cases of breast cancer. Pathological and biological parameters and instrumental procedures performed at the time of diagnosis and during 6 months of follow-up were recorded. True positive and negative, false positive and negative cases were evaluated. All cases were grouped on the basis of tumour size, nodal involvement, biological characteristics, menopausal status and age. Results. We observed 46 (3.8%) true positive cases with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Documentation relating to BS, CXR and LUS was available for 1,193, 1,206 and 1,206 patients, respectively, with 37 (3.1%), 8 (0.7%) and 10 (0.8%) true positive tests. Logistic regression analysis showed significant odds ratio estimates for pT status and nodal status, thus highlighting the role of these morphological data. These findings suggest that breast cancer patients can be divided into two subgroups: first group pT1-3N0-I, with ≤3 involved nodes, and second group pT1-3N1 with ≥4 involved nodes, pT4 and pN2 (metastases detection rate 1.46 and 10.68%, respectively). In the former group the appropriate procedures of staging would only be laboratory parameters, whereas in the latter group BS, CXR, LUS, LP and tumour markers CEA and CA15.3 would be necessary. Conclusions. The standard staging procedures to detect metastatic disease at breast cancer diagnosis require modification. On the basis of the literature data and our findings, the full staging procedure is appropriate in the second group of patients.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 53-60 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Breast Cancer Research and Treatment |
| Volume | 72 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2002 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Bone scan
- Breast cancer
- Chest X-ray
- Staging
- Ultrasonography
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oncology
- Cancer Research
Cite this
Staging of breast cancer : New recommended standard procedure. / Ravaioli, Alberto; Pasini, Giuseppe; Polselli, Antonio; Papi, Maximilian; Tassinari, Davide; Arcangeli, Valentina; Milandri, Carlo; Amadori, Dino; Bravi, Matteo; Rossi, Daniela; Fattori, Pier Paolo; Pasquini, Enzo; Panzini, Ilaria.
In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 72, No. 1, 2002, p. 53-60.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Staging of breast cancer
T2 - New recommended standard procedure
AU - Ravaioli, Alberto
AU - Pasini, Giuseppe
AU - Polselli, Antonio
AU - Papi, Maximilian
AU - Tassinari, Davide
AU - Arcangeli, Valentina
AU - Milandri, Carlo
AU - Amadori, Dino
AU - Bravi, Matteo
AU - Rossi, Daniela
AU - Fattori, Pier Paolo
AU - Pasquini, Enzo
AU - Panzini, Ilaria
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - Background. Staging procedures used to detect metastatic breast cancer at the time of diagnosis are bone scan (BS), chest X-ray (CXR), liver ultrasonography (LUS) and laboratory parameters (LP). These procedures are expensive and not all patients need them. We aimed to identify groups of patients with different risks for metastatic disease. Methods. We reviewed data from 1,218 consecutive cases of breast cancer. Pathological and biological parameters and instrumental procedures performed at the time of diagnosis and during 6 months of follow-up were recorded. True positive and negative, false positive and negative cases were evaluated. All cases were grouped on the basis of tumour size, nodal involvement, biological characteristics, menopausal status and age. Results. We observed 46 (3.8%) true positive cases with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Documentation relating to BS, CXR and LUS was available for 1,193, 1,206 and 1,206 patients, respectively, with 37 (3.1%), 8 (0.7%) and 10 (0.8%) true positive tests. Logistic regression analysis showed significant odds ratio estimates for pT status and nodal status, thus highlighting the role of these morphological data. These findings suggest that breast cancer patients can be divided into two subgroups: first group pT1-3N0-I, with ≤3 involved nodes, and second group pT1-3N1 with ≥4 involved nodes, pT4 and pN2 (metastases detection rate 1.46 and 10.68%, respectively). In the former group the appropriate procedures of staging would only be laboratory parameters, whereas in the latter group BS, CXR, LUS, LP and tumour markers CEA and CA15.3 would be necessary. Conclusions. The standard staging procedures to detect metastatic disease at breast cancer diagnosis require modification. On the basis of the literature data and our findings, the full staging procedure is appropriate in the second group of patients.
AB - Background. Staging procedures used to detect metastatic breast cancer at the time of diagnosis are bone scan (BS), chest X-ray (CXR), liver ultrasonography (LUS) and laboratory parameters (LP). These procedures are expensive and not all patients need them. We aimed to identify groups of patients with different risks for metastatic disease. Methods. We reviewed data from 1,218 consecutive cases of breast cancer. Pathological and biological parameters and instrumental procedures performed at the time of diagnosis and during 6 months of follow-up were recorded. True positive and negative, false positive and negative cases were evaluated. All cases were grouped on the basis of tumour size, nodal involvement, biological characteristics, menopausal status and age. Results. We observed 46 (3.8%) true positive cases with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Documentation relating to BS, CXR and LUS was available for 1,193, 1,206 and 1,206 patients, respectively, with 37 (3.1%), 8 (0.7%) and 10 (0.8%) true positive tests. Logistic regression analysis showed significant odds ratio estimates for pT status and nodal status, thus highlighting the role of these morphological data. These findings suggest that breast cancer patients can be divided into two subgroups: first group pT1-3N0-I, with ≤3 involved nodes, and second group pT1-3N1 with ≥4 involved nodes, pT4 and pN2 (metastases detection rate 1.46 and 10.68%, respectively). In the former group the appropriate procedures of staging would only be laboratory parameters, whereas in the latter group BS, CXR, LUS, LP and tumour markers CEA and CA15.3 would be necessary. Conclusions. The standard staging procedures to detect metastatic disease at breast cancer diagnosis require modification. On the basis of the literature data and our findings, the full staging procedure is appropriate in the second group of patients.
KW - Bone scan
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Chest X-ray
KW - Staging
KW - Ultrasonography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036211751&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036211751&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1023/A:1014900600815
DO - 10.1023/A:1014900600815
M3 - Article
C2 - 12000220
AN - SCOPUS:0036211751
VL - 72
SP - 53
EP - 60
JO - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
JF - Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
SN - 0167-6806
IS - 1
ER -