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
  • [31] Integrating breast cancer genetics into clinical practice
    Mukherjee, Abhik
    Rakha, Emad A.
    WOMENS HEALTH, 2012, 8 (01) : 99 - 112
  • [32] Molecular characterization of breast cancer in clinical practice
    Zemmouri, Y.
    De Croze, D.
    Salomon, A. Vincent
    Rouzier, R.
    Bonneau, C.
    GYNECOLOGIE OBSTETRIQUE & FERTILITE, 2016, 44 (05): : 285 - 292
  • [33] Changes of breast cancer staging when AJCC prognostic staging manual is used: a retrospective analysis of a Chinese cohort
    Ding, Jinhua
    Wu, Weizhu
    Fang, Jianjiang
    Chu, Yudong
    Zheng, Siming
    Jiang, Li
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MARKERS, 2018, 33 (02) : 168 - 173
  • [34] Clinical Databases for Breast Cancer Research
    Hwang, Ki-Tae
    TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH IN BREAST CANCER, 2021, 1187 : 493 - 509
  • [35] Incidence and survival of primary metastatic breast cancer in Denmark: implication of breast cancer screening, classification, and staging practice
    Berg, Tobias
    Jensen, Maj-Britt
    Rossing, Maria
    Axelsen, Christian T.
    Kumler, Iben
    Sondergaard, Lise
    Vogsen, Marianne
    Knoop, Ann S.
    Ejlertsen, Bent
    ACTA ONCOLOGICA, 2024, 63 : 277 - 287
  • [36] Bayesian survival analysis in clinical trials: What methods are used in practice?
    Brard, Caroline
    Le Teuff, Gwenael
    Le Deley, Marie-Cecile
    Hampson, Lisa V.
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2017, 14 (01) : 78 - 87
  • [37] The clinical use of staging bone scan in patients with breast carcinoma - Reevaluation by the 2003 American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System
    Lee, JE
    Park, SS
    Han, W
    Kim, SW
    Shin, HJ
    Choe, KJ
    Oh, SK
    Youn, YK
    Noh, DY
    Kim, SW
    CANCER, 2005, 104 (03) : 499 - 503
  • [38] Diagnosis, clinical staging, and treatment of breast cancer - A retrospective multiyear study of a large controlled population
    Legorreta, AP
    Chernicoff, HO
    Trinh, JB
    Parker, RG
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY-CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS, 2004, 27 (02): : 185 - 190
  • [39] Additional Value of PET-CT in Staging of Clinical Stage IIB and III Breast Cancer
    Segaert, Isabelle
    Mottaghy, Felix
    Ceyssens, Sarah
    De Wever, Walter
    Stroobants, Sigrid
    Van Ongeval, Chantal
    Van Limbergen, Eric
    Wildiers, Hans
    Paridaens, Robert
    Vergote, Ignace
    Christiaens, Marie-Rose
    Neven, Patrick
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2010, 16 (06) : 617 - 624
  • [40] What do breast cancer patients benefit from staging bone scintigraphy?
    Koizumi, M
    Yoshimoto, M
    Kasumi, F
    Ogata, E
    JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2001, 31 (06) : 263 - 269