Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 ≤q 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 ≥ 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 Euro 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brenner H, Hakulinen T: Long-term cancer patient survival achieved by the end of the 20th century: most up-to-date estimates from the nationwide Finnish cancer registry. Br J Cancer 85: 367-371, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  2. Niu Y, Fu X, Lv A, Fan Y, Wang Y: Potential markers predicting distant metastasis in axillary node-negative breast carcinoma. Int J Cancer 98: 754-760, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barry MC, Thornton F, Murphy M, Younis F, Watson RG: The value of metastatic screening in early primary breast cancer. Ir J Med Sci 168: 248-250, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  4. Samant R, Ganguly P: Staging investigations in patients with breast cancer: the role of bone scans and liver imaging. Arch Surg 134: 551-553, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ravaioli A, Tassinari D, Pasini G, Polselli A, Papi M, Fattori PP, Pasquini E, Masi A, Alessandrini F, Canuti D, Panzini I, Drudi G: Staging of breast cancer: what standards should be used in research and clinical practice? Ann Oncol 9: 1173-1177, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  6. Myers RE, Johnston M, Pritchard K, Levine M, Oliver T: Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline. CMAJ 164: 1439-1444, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ravaioli A, Pasini G, Polselli A, Papi M, Tassinari D, Arcangeli V, Milandri C, Amadori D, Bravi M, Rossi D, Fattori PP, Pasquini E, Panzini I: Staging of breast cancer: new recommended standard procedure. Breast Cancer Res Treat 72: 53-60, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dillman RO, Chico S: Radiologic tests after a new diagnosis of breast cancer. Eff Clin Pract 3: 1-6, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sakorafas GH, Tsiotou AG, Pavlakis G: Follow-up after primary treatment for breast cancer. Acta Oncol 39: 935-940, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  10. Donnelly J, Mack P, Donaldson LA: Follow-up of breast cancer: time for a new approach? Int J Clin Pract 55: 431-433, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tassinari D, Sartori S, Ravaioli A: Staging of breast cancer. Is the evidence so evident? Ann Oncol 12: 1653, D, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  12. Will BP, Berthelot JM, Le Petit C, Tomiak EM, Verma S, Evans WK: Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada. Eur J Cancer 36: 724-735, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaplan E, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observation. Am Stat Assoc 53: 457-481, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mantel N: Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50: 163-170, 1963

    Google Scholar 

  15. Norum J, Andreassen T: Screening for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. What is costeffective? Anticancer Res 20: 2193-2196, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ravaioli A, Tassinari D, Panzini I, Milandri C, Amadori D: Staging of breast cancer: it is time to break with tradition and initiate the evidence-based-medicine age. J Clin Oncol 19: 1234, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wingo PA, Ries LA, Giovino GA, Miller DS, Rosenberg HM, Shopland DR, Thun MJ, Edwards BK: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973-1996, with a special section on lung cancer and tobacco smoking. J Natl Cancer Inst 91: 675-690, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vacek PM, Geller BM, Weaver DL, Foster RSJ: Increased mammography use and its impact on earlier breast cancer detection in Vermont, 1975-1999. Cancer 94: 2160-2168, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  19. Klemi PJ, Joensuu H, Toikkanen S, Tuominen J, Rasanen O, Tyrkko J, Parvinen I: Aggressiveness of breast cancers found with and without screening. BMJ 304: 467-469, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  20. ESMO: ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up of primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 12: 1047-1048, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sant M: Differences in stage and therapy for breast cancer across Europe. Int J Cancer 93: 894-901, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hoffken K: The European experience. J Clin Oncol 19: 112S-117S, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  23. Curigliano G, Ferretti G, Colleoni M, Marrocco E, Peruzzotti G, De Cicco C, Paganelli G, Goldhirsch A: Bone scan had no role in the staging of 765 consecutive operable T(1-2)N(0-1) breast cancer patients without skeletal symptoms. Ann Oncol 12: 724-725, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hadley D, Fowble B, Torosian MH: Evidence for selective use of bone scans in early stage breast cancer. Oncol Rep 5: 991-993, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chen EA, Carlson GA, Coughlin BF, Reed WPJ, Garb JL, Frank JL: Routine chest roentgenography is unnecessary in the work-up of stage I and II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 3503-3506, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cooke AL: Baseline staging tests for breast cancer. CMAJ 166: 419, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ: Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21, 3357-3365, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  28. NIH: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 5-15, 2001

  29. Nabholtz J, Pienkowski T, Mackey J, Pawlicki M, Guastalla JP, Vogel C, Weaver C, Walley M: Phase III trial comparing TAC (docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) with FAC (5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) in the adjuvant treatment of node poitive breast cancer patients: interim analysis of the BCIRG 001study. Proc ASCO 21: 36a, #141, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  30. Rojas MP, Telaro E, Russo A, Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Liberati A: Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD001768, 2000

  31. GIVIO Investigators: Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. A multicenter randomized controlled trial. JAMA 271: 1587-1592, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rosselli DT, Palli D, Cariddi A, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V: Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA 271: 1593-1597, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  33. Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C, Ciatto S, Rosselli DT, Distante V, Pacini P: Intensive v.s. clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: 10-year update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer Followup. JAMA 281: 1586, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  34. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, Bassett LW, Berry D, Bland KI, Borgen PI, Clark G, Edge SB, Hayes DF, Hughes LL, Hutter RV, Morrow M, Page DL, Recht A, Theriault RL, Thor A, Weaver DL, Wieand HS, Greene FL: Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 3628-3636, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bruneton JN, Balu-Maestro C, Raffaelli C, Mourou MY, Cambon P, Granon C: Indications for hepatic ultrasonography in breast cancer staging and follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37: 115-121, 1996

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Bernd Gerber, Annette Krause & Klaus Friese

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

    Eva Seitz, Heiner Müller & Toralf Reimer

  3. Institute of Medical Informatics and Biometry, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany

    Günther Kundt

Authors
  1. Bernd Gerber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Seitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heiner Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annette Krause
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Toralf Reimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Günther Kundt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Klaus Friese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerber, B., Seitz, E., Müller, H. et al. Perioperative Screening for Metastatic Disease is not Indicated in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer and no Clinical Signs of Tumor Spread. Breast Cancer Res Treat 82, 29–37 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BREA.0000003917.05413.ac

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BREA.0000003917.05413.ac

Search

Navigation