Staging of breast cancer: What standards should be used in research and clinical practice?

被引:25
作者
Ravaioli, A [1 ]
Tassinari, D [1 ]
Pasini, G [1 ]
Polselli, A [1 ]
Papi, M [1 ]
Fattori, PP [1 ]
Pasquini, E [1 ]
Masi, A [1 ]
Alessandrini, F [1 ]
Canuti, D [1 ]
Panzini, I [1 ]
Drudi, G [1 ]
机构
[1] City Hosp, Dept Oncol, I-47900 Rimini, Italy
关键词
bone scan; breast cancer; chest radiography; liver ultrasonography; risk groups; staging;
D O I
10.1023/A:1008483806113
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background. Bone scan (BS), chest X-rays (CXR), liver ultrasonography (LUS) and laboratory parameters (LP) are frequently used as routine staging procedures for breast cancer patients. These procedures are not always appropriate in either clinical or research settings, regardless of the stage. The aim of this study was to identify groups of patients with differing risks for metastases in order to select more precise standard staging procedures. Patients ann methods: The staging data relating to 406 breast cancer patients consecutively referred to our institution between November 1989 and October 1996 were analysed including pathological TNN grading and biological parameters. All of the cases with a positive or suspicious pre-operatory staging and who proved to have metastatic disease before surgery or during the first six months of follow-up were considered true- positive; all of the other cases with a positive or suspicious initial staging but with no evidence of distant metastasis before surgery and with a disease-free survival longer then six months were considered false-positive. In the same way all cases with negative initial staging who relapsed during the first six months of follow-up were considered false-negative and those with negative initial staging and with a disease-free survival longer then six months were considered true-negative. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. Results: BS, CXR and LUS, 388, 399 and 398 examinations respectively, were considered available, and 17 (4.38%), six (1.5%) and four (1%), respectively, proved to be true-positive. A statistically significant difference was observed when our cases were grouped according to T status (T-4 vs. T-1-T-2-T-3, P < 0.01) and nodal status (N-0-N-1 cases with less than three involved nodes and N-1 with more than three positive lymph nodes N-2 patients, P < 0.01). Conclusions. The present study suggests that breast cancer patients can be divided into three subgroups with different detection rates for distant metastases at staging (0.59%, 2.94% and 15.53%), and that the standard practice should be changed. In the first (T1N0 and T1N1 patients with less than or equal to 3 positive lymph nodes - 41.13% of the patients) and the second group (T2N0, T2N1 with less than or equal to 3 positive lymph nodes, T3N0 and T3N1 patients with less than or equal to 3 positive lymph nodes -33.49% of the patients) there is no need for a complete set of staging procedures, whereas full procedural staging is needed in the third group of patients (T-4, N-1 with >3 lymph nodes and N-2, 25.37% of the patients).
引用
收藏
页码:1173 / 1177
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Should the Breast Cancer Staging System be Revised?
    Sanli, Ahmet Necati
    Sanli, Deniz Esin Tekcan
    Aydogan, Fatih
    Altundag, M. Kadri
    AMERICAN SURGEON, 2024, 90 (05) : 1066 - 1073
  • [2] Selecting women for breast cancer chemoprevention and what agents should be used
    J Cuzick
    Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice, 10 (Suppl 2)
  • [3] A Survey of Practice Patterns for Clinical Nodal Staging Prior to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer
    Lee, Han-Byoel
    Lee, Kyung-Hun
    Song, Seok Hyun
    Kim, Kyubo
    Kim, Hong Kyu
    Moon, Hyeong-Gon
    Han, Wonshik
    Lee, Dae-Won
    Im, Seock-Ah
    Jang, Bum-Sup
    Kim, Yong Bae
    Yu, Jonghan
    Kim, Jee Hyun
    Park, Yeon Hee
    Shin, Kyung Hwan
    Chang, Ji Hyun
    ONCOLOGIST, 2023, : e1142 - e1151
  • [4] Guidance for Canadian Breast Cancer Practice: National Consensus Recommendations for Clinical Staging of Patients Newly Diagnosed with Breast Cancer
    Cao, Jeffrey Q.
    Surgeoner, Brae
    Manna, Mita
    Boileau, Jean-Francois
    Gelmon, Karen A.
    Brackstone, Muriel
    Brezden-Masley, Christine
    Jerzak, Katarzyna J.
    Prakash, Ipshita
    Sehdev, Sandeep
    Wong, Stephanie M.
    Bouganim, Nathaniel
    Cescon, David W.
    Chia, Stephen
    Dayes, Ian S.
    Joy, Anil Abraham
    Henning, Jan-Willem
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2024, 31 (11) : 7226 - 7243
  • [5] 'Omics Approaches in Breast Cancer Research and Clinical Practice
    Kalita-de Croft, Priyakshi
    Al-Ejeh, Fares
    Reed, Amy E. McCart
    Saunus, Jodi M.
    Lakhani, Sunil R.
    ADVANCES IN ANATOMIC PATHOLOGY, 2016, 23 (06) : 356 - 367
  • [6] Should Tamoxifen Be Used in Breast Cancer Prevention?
    Rita Kramer
    Powel Brown
    Drug Safety, 2004, 27 : 979 - 989
  • [7] Genetic and epigenetic alterations in breast cancer: What are the perspectives for clinical practice?
    Fucito, Alfredo
    Lucchetti, Chiara
    Giordano, Antonio
    Romano, Gaetano
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOCHEMISTRY & CELL BIOLOGY, 2008, 40 (04) : 565 - 575
  • [8] Axillary staging in daily practice in the diagnosis of breast cancer
    Boudier, J.
    Oldrini, G.
    Barlier, C.
    Lesur, A.
    ONCOLOGIE, 2019, 21 (1-4) : 11 - 16
  • [9] Imaging tests in staging and surveillance of non-metastatic breast cancer: changes in routine clinical practice and cost implications
    De Placido, S.
    De Angelis, C.
    Giuliano, M.
    Pizzi, C.
    Ruocco, R.
    Perrone, V.
    Bruzzese, D.
    Tommasielli, G.
    De laurentiis, M.
    Cammarota, S.
    Arpino, G.
    Arpino, G.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2017, 116 (06) : 821 - 827
  • [10] Imaging tests in staging and surveillance of non-metastatic breast cancer: changes in routine clinical practice and cost implications
    S De Placido
    C De Angelis
    M Giuliano
    C Pizzi
    R Ruocco
    V Perrone
    D Bruzzese
    G Tommasielli
    M De Laurentiis
    S Cammarota
    G Arpino
    G Arpino
    British Journal of Cancer, 2017, 116 : 821 - 827