Assessment of Extent of Disease in Primary Breast Cancer



Fewer than 10% of patients with breast cancer have detectable metastases at initial diagnosis. Most patients who present with such measurable metastatic disease have the diagnosis made on the basis of symptoms or abnormal physical exam findings. A greater number of patients have occult metastatic disease at presentation yet are asymptomatic. Metastatic breast cancer is generally considered incurable, with few patients achieving long-term survival. The goal of systemic staging, therefore, is to identify patients who would be rendered incurable by the presence of distant metastases since this has important implications for prognosis and treatment. The ability to identify patients at greatest risk of measurable metastatic disease at presentation, or later in their care, facilities the appropriate use of screening studies while sparing unnecessary diagnostic procedures and the associated anxiety for those in whom testing would likely be normal. For most patients, extensive imaging can be avoided. This can be a difficult concept for patients to understand, and the usual case is that of the patient who believes that more extensive testing is beneficial.


Breast Cancer Positron Emission Tomography Metastatic Breast Cancer National Comprehensive Cancer Network Circulate Tumor Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Myers RE, Johnston M, Pritchard K, et al. Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline. CMAJ. 2001;164:1439–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen EA, Carlson GA, Coughlin BF, et al. Routine chest roentgenography is unnecessary in the work-up of stage I and II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:3503–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ravaioli A, Pasini G, Polselli A, et al. Staging of breast cancer: new recommended standard procedure. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;72:53–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Isaacs RJ, Ford JM, Allan SG, et al. Role of computed tomography in the staging of primary breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1993;80:201037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehta VK, Goffinet DR. Unsuspected abnormalities noted on CT treatment-planning scans obtained for breast and chest wall irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49:723–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson RW, Anderson BO, Burstein HJ, et al. Invasive breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2007;5:246–312.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mankoff DA, Eubank WB. Current and future use of positron emission tomography (PET) in breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2006;2010:125–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carr CE, Conant EF, Rosen MA, et al. The impact of FDG PET in the staging of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:530 (abstract) (2006 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eubank WB, Mankoff DA, Takasugi J, et al. 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to detect mediastinal or internal mammary metastases in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:3516–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Segaert I, Neven P, Ceyssens S, et al. Preoperative FDG-PET/CT can change the tumor stage in locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio, TX; 2005: abstract 5014.Google Scholar
  11. 2010.
    Cook GJ, Houston S, Rubens R, et al. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by 18FDG PET: differing metabolic activity in osteoblastic and osteolytic lesions. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:3375–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braun S, Pantel K, Muller P, et al. Cytokeratin-positive cells in the bone marrow and survival of patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:525–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dawood S, Cristofanilli M. Integrating circulating tumor cell assays into the management of breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2007;8:89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of MedicineStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations