[Indication for bone scans in early breast cancer staging]

Staging Investigations in Asymptomatic Early Breast Cancer Patients at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario

Background: In 2012, the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) identified five key opportunities in oncology to improve patient care, recommending against imaging tests for the staging of patients with early breast cancer (EBC) at low risk for metastases. Similarly, the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) guideline does not support radiological staging in asymptomatic EBC (aEBC). The purpose of this study was to assess local practice and outcomes of staging investigations (SIs) in aEBC at the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario (CCSEO). Methods: A retrospective electronic and paper chart review was undertaken to identify all aEBC patients treated at our institution between January 2012 and December 2014. Patients with pathological staging of T1-T2 and N0-1 with any receptor status were included. We collected patient demographics, treatment and pathologic tumor characteristics. The use and outcomes of initial and follow-up SIs were recorded. Data were analyzed to determine associations between the use of SIs and clinical characteristics (chi-square tests, independent samples t-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests). Results: From 2012 to 2014, 295 asymptomatic EBC patients were identified. The mean age was 64, 81% were postmenopausal and 76% had breast conserving surgery. Stage distribution was as follows: stage I 42%, stage IIA 37% and stage IIB 21%. Receptor status was as follows: ER+ 84%, HER2+ 13% and triple negative 12%. Adjuvant chemotherapy was received by 36%, Trastuzumab by 10% and endocrine therapy by 76% of patients. Baseline SIs were performed in 168 patients (57%) for a total of 332 tests. Overt metastatic disease was found in five patients (one bone scan and four CT scans). Seventy-one out of the 168 patients (42%) who received initial staging imaging underwent 138 follow-up imaging tests, none of which were diagnostic for metastases. Nine patients with suspicious CT findings underwent biopsies, of which four were malignant (one metastatic breast cancer and three new primaries). Factors significantly associated with SI were as follows: younger age (p = 0.001), premenopausal status (p = 0.01), T2 stage (p < 0.001), N1 stage (p < 0.001), HER2 positive (p < 0.001), triple negative status (p = 0.007) and use of adjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Over a 3-year period at our institution, more than 50% of aEBC patients underwent a total of 470 initial and follow-up staging tests, yielding a cancer diagnosis (metastatic breast cancer or second primary cancer) in four patients. We, therefore, conclude that routine-staging investigations in aEBC patients have low diagnostic value, supporting current guidelines that recommend against the routine use of SI in this population.

Value of routine staging imaging studies for patients with stage III breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Routine staging imaging studies (RSIS) are optional in stage III breast cancer (BC). The impact of RSIS on treatment decisions and patient outcomes has not been extensively studied. The goal of this study was to determine whether RSIS in stage III BC affected treatment or patient outcomes.

METHODS

Stage III BC patients from 2000 to 2010 were retrospectively identified. RSIS results and treatment plan in response to RSIS results were recorded. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models with time-dependent covariates were used to assess associations between RSIS use and recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

Of 420 patients, 362 (86.2%) received RSIS. RSIS were negative in 264 (72.9%), indeterminate in 77 (18.3%), and positive in 21 patients (5.0%) for metastatic disease. Treatment was altered in 21 (5.8%) patients based on RSIS results (20 with metastatic disease, 1 with indeterminate disease). There was no difference in RFS with RSIS use on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval 0.73-2.5, P = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Most stage III BC patients underwent RSIS, but RSIS results infrequently affected treatment decisions. There was no significant difference in RFS with RSIS use. RSIS to identify metastatic disease for stage III BC has limited value. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:917-921. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[Update of breast cancer in Primary Care (III/V)]

Breast cancer is a prevalent disease with implications in all aspects of patientś life, therefore, family doctors must know this pathology in depth, in order to optimize the health care provided to these patients with the best available resources. This series of five articles on breast cancer is based on a review of the scientific literature of the last ten years. This third article will review the clinical context and the staging and prognostic factors of the disease. This summary report aims to provide a global, current and practical review about this problem, providing answers to family doctors and helping them to be by the patients for their benefit throughout their illness.