Evaluation of bone scan as a screening work-up in primary and local-regional recurrence of breast cancer

Benchmarking Excellence: Evaluating Advanced Breast Carcinoma Care in Pakistan's Largest Cancer Hospital Against the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines

Introduction Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer worldwide, and even with all the screening and education, great numbers of diagnoses are made in advanced stages. Additionally, patients in remission always remain at risk of relapse and metastasis. Pakistan has the highest incidence of breast cancer among Asian countries. The purpose of this clinical audit was to compare data from the largest cancer hospital in Pakistan with international standards to provide room for quality improvement. Methods A retrospective review of patients with advanced breast carcinoma over a period of six months was done. Permission was obtained from the Quality Assurance and Patent Safety Department before the commencement of the audit. Standards Data obtained were audited against nine standards of four different categories from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on advanced breast carcinoma. Results For the diagnosis and assessment category, for which a target of 100% was set, 99.66% was achieved; for disease monitoring, for which a target of 100% was set, 91.8% was achieved; for systemic disease-modifying therapy, for which the majority was the target, only 1% was achieved; for managing complications, for which a target of 100% was set, 71.8% was achieved. Conclusion Continuous research and breakthrough advancements have made health care an ever-evolving field. Clinical audits like these that compare international standards with local data are beneficial and lead to quality improvement. They highlight issues that may be overlooked otherwise, raise questions that may never be asked, and may inspire prospective research studies. Limitations of the audit were that this clinical audit was conducted outside of the NHS where NICE guidelines are not followed and local guidelines differ from NICE guidelines.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Stage I Breast Cancer: Initial Workup and Surveillance for Local Recurrence and Distant Metastases in Asymptomatic Women

Women and health care professionals generally prefer intensive follow-up after a diagnosis of breast cancer. However, there are no survival differences between women who obtain intensive surveillance with imaging and laboratory studies compared with women who only undergo testing because of the development of symptoms or findings on clinical examinations. American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that annual mammography is the only imaging examination that should be performed to detect a localized breast recurrence in asymptomatic patients; more imaging may be needed if the patient has locoregional symptoms (eg, palpable abnormality). Women with other risk factors that increase their lifetime risk for breast cancer may warrant evaluation with breast MRI. Furthermore, the quality of life is similar for women who undergo intensive surveillance compared with those who do not. There is little justification for imaging to detect or rule out metastasis in asymptomatic women with newly diagnosed stage I breast cancer. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Stage I Breast Carcinoma

Stage I breast carcinoma is classified when an invasive breast carcinoma is ≤2 cm in diameter (T1), with no regional (axillary) lymph node metastases (N0) and no distant metastases (M0). The most common sites for metastases from breast cancer are the skeleton, lung, liver, and brain. In general, women and health care professionals prefer intensive screening and surveillance after a diagnosis of breast cancer. Screening protocols include conventional imaging such as chest radiography, bone scan, ultrasound of the liver, and MRI of brain. It is uncertain whether PET/CT will serve as a replacement for current imaging technologies. However, there are no survival or quality-of-life differences for women who undergo intensive screening and surveillance after a diagnosis of stage I breast carcinoma compared with those who do not. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 2 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.

Staging Investigations in Breast Cancer: Collective Opinion of UK Breast Surgeons

Introduction. Certain clinicopathological factors are associated with a higher likelihood of distant metastases in primary breast cancer. However, there remains inconsistency in which patients undergo formal staging for distant metastasis and the most appropriate investigation(s). Aims. To identify UK surgeon preferences and practice with regard to staging investigations for distant metastases. Methods. A survey was disseminated to members of the Association of Breast Surgery by e-mail regarding surgeon/breast unit demographics, use of staging investigations, and local policy on pre/postoperative staging investigations. Several patient scenarios were also presented. Results. 123 of 474 (25.9%) recipients completed the survey. Investigations routinely employed for patients diagnosed with early breast cancer included serological/haematological tests (72% respondents), axillary ultrasound (67%), liver ultrasound (2%), chest radiograph (36%), and computed tomography (CT) (1%). Three areas contributed to decisions to undertake staging by CT scan: tumour size, axillary nodal status, and plan for chemotherapy. There was widespread variation as to criteria for CT staging based on tumour size and nodal status, as well as the choice of staging investigation for the clinical scenarios presented. Conclusions. There remains variation in the use of staging investigations for distant disease in early breastcancer despite available guidelines.

Baseline staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer--Kuwait cancer control center experience

OBJECTIVE

To determine the value of staging investigations in detecting metastases in newly diagnosed asymptomatic patients with breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of patients' files with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the period from 1993 to 1998 was performed. Due to inadequate information, thirty-eight files were excluded leaving 785 files for analysis.

RESULTS

Of the total 785 patients, we found distant metastases at the time of primary diagnosis in 36 (4.6%) patients, bone metastases in 29 (3.7%) patients, pulmonary metastases in 6 (0.8%) patients and liver metastases in 5 (0.6%) patients. Overall, 0.7% of patients with clinical stage I and II disease had metastases compared with 16.2% of patients with clinical stage III disease (statistically significant p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The results confirm the low yield of routine bone scans, liver ultrasound and chest X-ray among patients with asymptomatic early-stage breast cancer. These tests are therefore not recommended for such patients, although intensive investigations are appropriate for more advanced tumors.

Incidence and prognostic factors of Japanese breast cancer patients with bone metastasis

BACKGROUND

Few previous studies have analyzed the incidence of bone metastases in a defined population of Japanese breast cancer patients and their prognosis after chemotherapy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. We investigated 695 patients who underwent surgery for breast cancer. The strategy of adjuvant therapy was as follows. Patients with both estrogen receptors (ERs) and progesterone receptors (PgRs) had endocrine therapy as initial adjuvant therapy (n = 239). Patients with neither ERs nor PgRs had chemotherapy. When metastasis to other organs, including bone, was identified, patients received chemotherapy. The survival rates after surgery and after the onset of bone metastasis, as well as the incidence of bone metastasis, were calculated. We also evaluated the prognostic and predictive factors.

RESULTS

Bone metastases developed in 148 of 695 patients. All 148 received chemotherapy, and 121 of them developed spinal metastases. The 5-year survival rate after bone metastases was 26.1%. Prognostic factors for bone metastases were visceral metastases and PgR status. Cord compression was observed in 17 of the 148 patients, with the thoracic spine being the most common. The 1-year survival rate for patients with bone metastases who received chemotherapy was 66.3%, whereas that of patients with paralysis after spinal metastases was 17.6%. Within 6 months of the development of spinal cord compression, 70.6% of the patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

We reported the incidence and prognostic factors for a defined population of Japanese breast cancer patients with bone and spinal metastases. Our results suggest that the expected survival time for patients with paralysis who received adequate endocrine therapy or chemotherapy is generally poor. However, to detect a predictive factor of long survival after paralysis and establish the indications for surgery, a comparative study among large groups of patients with paralysis and with different backgrounds is necessary.

Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer

Bone is the most common site to which breast cancer metastasizes. Imaging-by skeletal scintigraphy, plain radiography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging-is an essential part, and positron emission tomography or single-photon emission computed tomography have a potential of evaluating bone metastases, but no consensus exists as to the best modality for diagnosing the lesion and for assessing its response to treatment. Imaging bone metastases is problematic because the lesions can be osteolytic, osteoblastic, or mixed, and imaging modalities are based on either direct anatomic visualization of the bone or tumor or indirect measurements of bone or tumor metabolism. Although bone metastases can be treated, their response to treatment is considered "unmeasurable" according to existing response criteria. Therefore, the process by which oncologists and radiologists diagnose and monitor the response of bone metastases needs revision, and the current inability to assess the response of bone metastases excludes patients with breast cancer and bone disease from participating in clinical trials of new treatments for breast cancer. In this review of the MEDLINE literature, we discuss the pros and cons of each modality for diagnosing bone metastases and for assessing their response to treatment and we present a practical approach for diagnosis and assessment of bone metastasis.

Prognoses of T4 breast cancer subsets

BACKGROUND

The relative prognoses of subsets of patients with T4 breast tumors, since the advent of neoadjuvant therapy, are unknown, although inflammatory carcinoma (T4d) is considered to have the worst prognosis.

METHODS

Subsets of T4 patients were analyzed for the incidence of distant metastases at presentation (M1; n = 263). T4M0 patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy (n = 126) were analyzed for relapse-free survival (RFS). T4d tumors with (Cut/CW+) and without (Cut/CW-) skin nodules, posterior fixation, or both were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Fewer patients with T4d (Cut/CW-) tumors had distant metastases at presentation than T4d (Cut/CW+) patients or T4b and T4c patients (P =.001,.001, and.009, respectively). RFS was longer for T4b patients than for T4c patients (P =.018) or T4d (Cut/CW+) patients (P =.003). RFS of the T4d (Cut/CW+) patients was shorter than for T4d (Cut/CW-) patients (P =.050).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of distant metastases at presentation was lowest, and RFS was longest, for patients with T4d tumors not grossly involving the skin or posterior structures. Patients whose tumors grossly invaded both skin and posterior structures (T4c) or those with T4d tumors grossly invading either most frequently presented with distant metastases and had the shortest RFS.

Evaluation of an intensive strategy for follow-up and surveillance of primary breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Controversies over the frequency and intensity of the follow-up care of breast cancer patients exist. Some physicians have adopted an intensive approach to follow-up care that consists of frequent laboratory tests and routine imaging studies, including chest radiographs, bone scans, and CT scans, whereas others have established a minimalist approach consisting of only history, physical examinations, and mammograms.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to evaluate the role of intensive follow-up on detection of breast cancer recurrence and to examine the impact of follow-up on overall survival.

METHODS

During a 10-year period (1986-1996), 129 patients with recurrent disease were identified from a prospective database of 1898 breast cancer patients. The patients with recurrent disease were divided into minimalist or intensive groups according to method of detection.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven of 126 (21%) patients were assigned to the intensive method of detection group (LFT, CEA, CA 15-3, chest radiograph, CT scan, and bone scan); 99 of 126 (79%) patients were assigned to the minimal detection group (history, physical examination, and mammography). Distant disease to the bone was the most common initial tumor recurrence, at 27%. History, physical examination, and mammography detected recurrent cancer in approximately the same amount of time as LFTs, tumor markers, CT scans, and chest radiographs (P = .960). When the recurrent patients were divided into intensive and minimalist groups and analyzed by time to detection of recurrence, there was no significant difference between the time to detection in those recurrences detected by intensive methods and those recurrences detected by minimalist methods (P = .95). The independent variables age, tumor size, type of surgery, number of positive nodes, time to recurrence, method of detection, and site of recurrence (regional or distant) were subject to univariate and multivariate analysis by the Cox proportional hazards model. Only two variables had an impact on survival by multivariate analysis: early timing of the recurrence (P = .0011) and the site of the recurrence (P = .02). Timing was defined as early (< or =365 days from the time of diagnosis to recurrence) or late (> or =365 days from the time of diagnosis to recurrence). Early recurrence was the first variable found to be significant on stepwise forward regression analysis. The primary site of recurrence was significant at step two. The method of detection--intensive or minimal--did not significantly affect survival (P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no survival benefit to routine intensive follow-up regimens in detecting recurrent breast cancer. Expensive diagnostic tests such as bone scans, CT scans, and serial tumor markers are best used for detection of metastasis in symptomatic patients.

Routine bone scanning in patients with T1 and T2 breast cancer: a waste of money

BACKGROUND

Bone scans are often performed as routine staging procedures for patients with T1 and T2 breast cancers. Bone scanning in this patient population is evaluated with respect to cost and impact on clinical management.

METHODS

Three hundred sixteen women with clinical T1 or T2 breast cancer who had bone scans were treated at Fox Chase Cancer Center from January of 1991 to December of 1992. We reviewed clinical and pathologic tumor stage, nodal status, laboratory studies, symptoms, bone scans (frequency, results, and cost), and resultant studies.

RESULTS

Sixty-three women (20%) had bone scans that were interpreted as positive or suspicious for metastatic disease on initial presentation, resulting in 105 confirmatory studies, including 80 plain films, 10 computed tomography (CT) scans, 11 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, and four biopsies. Seven patients (2%) had skeletal metastases, six of whom had clinical stigmata of distant disease. A single patient (0.3%), with no signs or symptoms of distant disease, had bone metastases. The initial bone scans cost $224,676; additional tests cost another $53,122. The initial positive predictive value of bone scans in detecting metastatic disease was 11%. The "baseline" bone scans were followed by 130 "follow-up" scans over 2 years at a cost of $92,400. Seven patients developed metastatic disease, confirmed by 31 additional studies. Again, only one patient was asymptomatic. The availability of initial studies for comparison did not prevent thorough evaluation in women with worrisome follow-up bone scans.

CONCLUSIONS

Bone scans of 316 woman at initial presentation with T1 or T2 breast cancer identified one incurable patient whose management was changed. The cost was $277,798. Bone scans contribute little information to the management of asymptomatic patients.

An evaluation of radionuclide bone scanning and liver ultrasonography for staging breast cancer

The use of nuclear bone scanning and liver ultrasonography to stage breast cancer is an established practice in many hospitals. A 3 year prospective study was undertaken to assess the usefulness of these two investigations. Three hundred and fifty-eight patients were analysed: 133 had stage I disease, 188 were stage II and 37 were stage III. Bone scans were performed on 339 (94.7%) patients; 302 had stage I or stage II disease; and 37 were stage III. Bone scans were positive for metastases in only 0.9% of stage I and II patients but were positive in 16.2% of patients with stage III disease. None of the 309 (96.2%) stage I or stage II patients who had an ultrasound scan had any liver metastases detected whereas positive scans were obtained in 5.4% of stage III patients. It can be concluded that the incidence of demonstrable bone or liver metastases in stage I and stage II breast cancer patients is so low that the use of routine scanning can be abandoned.