Staging of breast cancer. Is the evidence so evident?

The clinical use of staging bone scan in patients with breast carcinoma: reevaluation by the 2003 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system

BACKGROUND

Using the new 2003 American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system, the authors evaluated the usefulness of the staging bone scan in patients with primary breast carcinoma.

METHODS

The authors examined 1939 patients with primary breast carcinoma for staging bone scan who were treated at a single institution. Pathologic stage was assigned retrospectively according to the 1988 and the 2003 AJCC staging systems.

RESULTS

Bone metastasis rates were 0.7% (4 of 586) for patients with Stage I disease, 0.7% (5 of 699) for patients with Stage IIA disease, 2.1% (10 of 479) for patients with Stage IIB disease, 4.5% (7 of 154) for patients with Stage IIIA disease, and 10.5% (2 of 19) for patients with Stage IIIB disease according to the 1988 AJCC staging system. The authors found a significant difference in the bone metastasis rate between patients with Stages IIA and IIB disease in the 1988 staging system (P = 0.039). Reevaluating the patients by the 2003 system resulted in significant upstaging, especially for patients with Stage II/III disease. According to the 2003 staging system, bone metastasis rates were 0.7% (4 of 586) for patients with Stage I disease, 0.6% (4 of 648) for patients with Stage IIA disease, 0.6% (2 of 310) for patients with Stage IIB disease, 4.0% (9 of 225) for patients with Stage IIIA disease, 16.7% (2 of 12) for patients with Stage IIIB disease, and 4.4% (7 of 158) for patients with Stage IIIC disease. It was noteworthy that there was a significant difference between Stages IIB and IIIA in the 2003 staging system (P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Stage reclassification using the new AJCC staging system resulted in upstaging of high-risk patients, as well as a significant decrease in the bone metastasis rate in patients with Stage IIB breast carcinoma. Considering the cost-effectiveness of staging bone scan, the data suggested that it was of little value for patients with Stage I and II breast carcinoma, but was highly recommended for patients with worse than Stage III disease by the new 2003 staging system.

Perioperative Screening for Metastatic Disease is not Indicated in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer and no Clinical Signs of Tumor Spread

BACKGROUND

Is a perioperative metastatic screening program indicated in patients presenting with primary operable breast cancer and no signs of distant metastases?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The impact of staging results (chest X-ray, bone scanning, liver ultrasound) for prognosis, treatment, quality of life and costs was retrospectively analyzed in 1076 patients with an operable breast cancer and no clinical signs of metastases.

RESULTS

Staging examinations revealed 30 (2.8%) distant metastases, 130 (12.1%) suspect findings and excluded metastases in 916 (85.1%) patients. Further diagnostic procedures confirmed distant metastases in 7 (5.4%) and excluded them in 123 (94.6%) out of 130 patients with suspect findings. Distant metastases were detected more frequently with increasing pathological tumor size (pT < or = 2.0 cm: 1.6%, pT 2.1-5.0 cm: 3.0%, respectively pT > 5.0 cm: 15.1%; p < 0.001) and increasing number of involved axillary lymph nodes (pN0: 1.9%, pN1-3+: 1.8%, pN4-9+: 4.0%, pN > or = 10+: 18.7%; p < 0.001). Due to false positive findings 123 (11.4%) patients had to live for a significant period of time with the psychological distress of suspected metastatic disease. The abandonment of a perioperative screening in 1076 patients saves costs of at least Euros 259,367.68.

CONCLUSIONS

In breast cancer patients without clinical signs of tumor spread perioperative screening for metastases is not warranted because of low frequency of metastases, false positive findings, missing therapeutic consequences and high costs.