Jung Hee Hong1, Jin Mo Goo1, Hyeong-Gon Moon2, Jung Min Chang1, Jong Hyuk Lee1, Chang Min Park1. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of staging chest-CT in terms of diagnostic yield and false-referral rate in patients with operable breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review border. In this retrospective study, we reviewed patients who underwent staging chest-CT between January 2014 and June 2016. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and radiologic tumor changes in accordance with primary tumor or metastatic lesions and stability during the 12-month follow-up period. We calculated diagnostic yield and false-referral rates stratified by pathologic stage. The important ancillary findings of staging chest-CT were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,342 patients were included in this study. Of these, four patients (0.3%; 4/1342) had true pulmonary metastasis. Diagnostic yields of stage I, II, III disease were 0.0% (0/521), 0.3% (2/693), and 1.6% (2/128), respectively. The overall false-referral rate was 4.6% (62/1342); false-referral rates of stage I, II, and III disease were 5.0% (26/521), 3.8% (26/693), and 7.8% (10/128), respectively. No occult thoracic metastasis occurred within 12 months of staging chest-CT. Nineteen patients showed significant ancillary findings besides lung metastasis, including primary lung cancer (n = 9). The overall diagnostic yield of ancillary findings was 1.7% (23 of 1342). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of pulmonary metastasis was near zero for pathologic stages I/II and slightly higher (although still low; 1.6%). for stage III. Considering its low diagnostic yield and substantial false-referral rates, staging chest-CT might not be useful in patients with operable breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of staging chest-CT in terms of diagnostic yield and false-referral rate in patients with operable breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review border. In this retrospective study, we reviewed patients who underwent staging chest-CT between January 2014 and June 2016. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and radiologic tumor changes in accordance with primary tumor or metastatic lesions and stability during the 12-month follow-up period. We calculated diagnostic yield and false-referral rates stratified by pathologic stage. The important ancillary findings of staging chest-CT were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1,342 patients were included in this study. Of these, four patients (0.3%; 4/1342) had true pulmonary metastasis. Diagnostic yields of stage I, II, III disease were 0.0% (0/521), 0.3% (2/693), and 1.6% (2/128), respectively. The overall false-referral rate was 4.6% (62/1342); false-referral rates of stage I, II, and III disease were 5.0% (26/521), 3.8% (26/693), and 7.8% (10/128), respectively. No occult thoracic metastasis occurred within 12 months of staging chest-CT. Nineteen patients showed significant ancillary findings besides lung metastasis, including primary lung cancer (n = 9). The overall diagnostic yield of ancillary findings was 1.7% (23 of 1342). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of pulmonary metastasis was near zero for pathologic stages I/II and slightly higher (although still low; 1.6%). for stage III. Considering its low diagnostic yield and substantial false-referral rates, staging chest-CT might not be useful in patients with operable breast cancer.
Authors: Alberto Ravaioli; Giuseppe Pasini; Antonio Polselli; Maximilian Papi; Davide Tassinari; Valentina Arcangeli; Carlo Milandri; Dino Amadori; Matteo Bravi; Daniela Rossi; Pier Paolo Fattori; Enzo Pasquini; Ilaria Panzini Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Thomas J Smith; Derek Raghavan; Douglas W Blayney; Patricia A Ganz; Therese Marie Mulvey; Dana S Wollins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heber MacMahon; David P Naidich; Jin Mo Goo; Kyung Soo Lee; Ann N C Leung; John R Mayo; Atul C Mehta; Yoshiharu Ohno; Charles A Powell; Mathias Prokop; Geoffrey D Rubin; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; William D Travis; Paul E Van Schil; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Margaret L Crivello; Karen Ruth; Elin R Sigurdson; Brian L Egleston; Kathryn Evers; Yu-Ning Wong; Marcia Boraas; Richard J Bleicher Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: David B Larson; Lara W Johnson; Beverly M Schnell; Shelia R Salisbury; Howard P Forman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Demetrios Simos; Brian Hutton; Ian D Graham; Angel Arnaout; Jean-Michel Caudrelier; Sasha Mazzarello; Mark Clemons Journal: Springerplus Date: 2014-04-05