Literature DB >> 7552621

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

K A Yeh1, L Fortunato, J A Ridge, J P Hoffman, B L Eisenberg, E R Sigurdson.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7552621     DOI: 10.1007/bf02307064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  26 in total

1.  Staging breast cancer: role of bone scanning.

Authors:  C J Davies; P A Griffiths; B J Preston; A H Morris; C W Elston; R W Blamey
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1977-09-03

2.  An evaluation of bone scans as screening procedures for occult metastases in primary breast cancer.

Authors:  R R Baker; E R Holmes; P O Alderson; N F Khouri; H N Wagner
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1977-09       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Bone scanning. Its value in the preoperative evaluation of patients with suspicious breast masses.

Authors:  H C Hoffman; R Marty
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1972-08       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  The efficacy of bone scanning in the follow-up of patients with operable breast cancer.

Authors:  L Wickerham; B Fisher; W Cronin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1984       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Serial scintiscanning in breast cancer: the indications and prognostic value.

Authors:  C M Furnival; L H Blumgart; D L Citrin; J H McKillop; I Fogelman; W R Greig
Journal:  Clin Oncol       Date:  1980-03

6.  Evaluation of bone scan in preoperative clinical staging of breast cancer.

Authors:  G S Wilson; M A Rich; M J Brennan
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1980-04

7.  Preoperative and follow-up procedures on patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  E F Scanlon; M A Oviedo; M P Cunningham; J A Caprini; J D Khandekar; E Cohen; B Robinson; E Stein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  The significance of occult skeletal metastases, detected by skeletal scintigraphy, in patients with otherwise apparently 'early' mammary carcinoma.

Authors:  C S Galasko
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  'For' or 'against' bone scintigraphy of patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  S G Derimanov
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 1.690

10.  The influence of bone pain on the results of bone scans.

Authors:  H E Schutte
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1979-12       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  4 in total

1.  Detection of Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer (BC) Patients by Serum Tartrate-Resistant Acid Phosphatase 5b (TRACP 5b), a Bone Resorption Marker and Serum Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP), a Bone Formation Marker, in Lieu of Whole Body Skeletal Scintigraphy with Technetium99m MDP.

Authors:  B K D Sarvari; D Sankara Mahadev; S Rupa; S A Mastan
Journal:  Indian J Clin Biochem       Date:  2013-11-20

2.  A multicenter evaluation of utility of chest computed tomography and bone scans in liver transplant candidates with stages I and II hepatoma.

Authors:  Baburao Koneru; Lewis W Teperman; Cosme Manzarbeitia; Marcelo Facciuto; Kyunghee Cho; David Reich; Patricia Sheiner; Adrian Fisher; Khristian Noto; Alec Goldenberg; Maria Korogodsky; Donna Campbell
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline.

Authors:  R E Myers; M Johnston; K Pritchard; M Levine; T Oliver
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Incidental radiologic findings at breast cancer diagnosis and likelihood of disease recurrence.

Authors:  Joel M Brothers; Kelley M Kidwell; Richard K J Brown; N Lynn Henry
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-01-21       Impact factor: 4.872

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.