Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Staging of Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis

  • 3185 Accesses

Abstract

Today, there are several imaging modalities available for staging newly diagnosed breast cancer. This evaluation to assess for the disease extent based on breast tumor size, lymph node involvement, and metastases using TMN system is needed to guide treatment, assess patients for clinical trials, and provide prognosis. Mammography remains the best imaging tool to evaluate for microcalcifications associated with the primary tumor, while MRI better demonstrates the tumor size and disease extent. Ultrasound is widely accepted as an adjunct to diagnostic mammography for the workup of breast masses and for image-guided biopsy. However, there is a growing utilization of axillary ultrasound for staging of the lymph node basins, as an adjunct to surgical staging with sentinel lymph node biopsy and/or axillary lymph node dissection. For assessment of possible distant metastases, PET in combination with CT provides the best overview or surveillance. These imaging modalities are all necessary for the radiologist to provide accurate primary tumor size, assess for regional nodal disease, and presence or absence of distant metastasis. This chapter discusses the different imaging modalities and their role in the staging workup of breast cancer.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Budzar AU, Buchholz TA, Taylor SH, Hortobagyi GN, Hunt KK. Chapter 4: breast cancer. In: Rodriguez MA, Walters RS, Burke TW, editors. 60 years of survival outcomes at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. Part VII. Breast. In: American Joint Committee on Cancer, editor. Cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson B, Yip CH, Smith RA, Shyyan R, Sener SF, Eniu A, et al. Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries: overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative Global Summit 2007. Cancer. 2008;113 suppl 8:2221–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Paganelli G, Galimberti V, Trifirò G, Travaini L, De Cicco C, Mazzarol G, et al. Internal mammary node lymphoscintigraphy and biopsy in breast cancer. Q J Nucl Med. 2002;46:138–44.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Theriault RL, Carlson RW, Allred C, Anderson BO, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, et al. National comprehensive cancer network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast, Version 3.2013. NCCN [internet]. 2013:1–176. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf.

  7. Diekmann F, Bick U. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011;32:281–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jakub JW, Gray RJ, Degnim AC, Boughey JC, Gardner M, Cox CE. Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non-palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2010;199:522–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® – ultrasound. In: ACR breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Harvey JA, Fechner RE, Moore MM. Apparent ipsilateral decrease in breast size at mammography: a sign of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Radiology. 2000;214:883–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Le Gal M, Ollivier L, Asselain B, Meunier M, Laurent M, Vielh P, et al. Mammographic features of 455 invasive lobular carcinomas. Radiology. 1992;185:705–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Butler RS, Venta LA, Wiley EL, Ellis RL, Dempsey PJ, Rubin E. Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(2):325–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rissanen T, Tikkakoski T, Autio AL, Apaja-Sarkkinen M. Ultrasonography of invasive lobular breast carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 1998;39(3):285–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Skaane P, Skjorten F. Ultrasonographic evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 1999;40:369–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Paramagul CP, Helvie MA, Adler DD. Invasive lobular carcinoma: sonographic appearance and role of sonography in improving diagnostic sensitivity. Radiology. 1995;195(1):231–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Selinko VL, Middleton LP, Dempsey PJ. Role of sonography in diagnosing and staging invasive lobular carcinoma. J Clin Ultrasound. 2004;32(7):323–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang WT, Tse GM. Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(1):101–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stavros AT. Malignant solid breast nodules: specific types. In: Stavros AT, editor. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &Wilkins; 2004. p. 597–688.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Park BW, Youk JH, Kwak JY, et al. US surveillance of regional lymph node recurrence after breast cancer surgery. Radiology. 2009;252(3):673–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bedi DG, Kirshnamurthy R, Krishnamurthy S, Edeiken BS, Le-Petross H, Fornage BD, et al. Cortical morphologic features of axillary lymph nodes as a predictor of metastasis in breast cancer: in vitro sonographic study. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:646–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alvarez S, Anorbe E, Alcorta P, Lopez F, Alonso I, Cortes J. Role of ultrasound in the diagnosis of axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: a systematic review. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1342–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cabanas RM. An approach for the treatment of penile carcinoma. Cancer. 1977;39(2):456–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Morton DL, Wen DR, Wong JH, Economou JS, Cagle LA, Storm FK, et al. Technical details of intraoperative lymphatic mapping for early stage melanoma. Arch Surg. 1992;127(4):392–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Krag D, Weaver D, Ashikaga T, Moffat F, Klimberg VS, Shriver C, et al. The sentinel node in breast cancer–a multicenter validation study. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(14):941–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, Luini A, Zurrida S, Galimberti V, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(6):546–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Giuliano AE, Dale PS, Turner RR, Morton DL, Evans SW, Krasne DL. Improved axillary staging of breast cancer with sentinel lymphadenectomy. Ann Surg. 1995;222(3):394–9; discussion 399–401.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lucci A, McCall LM, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Reintgen DS, Blumencranz PW, et al. Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(24):3657–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Caudle AS, Hunt KK, Kuerer HM, Meric-Bernstam F, Lucci A, Bedrosian I, et al. Multidisciplinary considerations in the implementation of the findings from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z0011 study: a practice-changing trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(9):2407–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Giuliano A, Hunt K, Ballman K, Beitsch P, Whitworth P, Blumencraz P, Leitch A, Saha S, McCall L, Morrow M. Axillary dissection vs. no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dominici L, Negron Gonzalez V, Buzdar A, Lucci A, Mittendorf E, Le-Petross H, Babiera G, Meric-Bernstam F, Hunt K, Kuerer H. Cytologically proven axillary lymph node metastases are eradicated in patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy with concurrent trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(12):2884–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Bauer M, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing radical mastectomy and total mastectomy with or without radiation. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(11):674–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Rourke LL, Hunt KK, Cormier JN. Breast cancer and lymphedema: a current overview for the healthcare provider. Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2010;6(3):399–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. American College of Radiology. Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) accreditation program requirements. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2008. Available at: http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/Accreditation/BreastMRI/Requirements.pdf.

  34. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS® – magnetic resonance imaging. In: ACR breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord SJ, Warren RM, Dixon JM, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3248–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Dixon JM, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5640–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(3):386–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(13):1295–303.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Mann RM. The effectiveness of MR imaging in the assessment of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18(2):259–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Le-Petross CH, Bidaut L, Yang WT. Evolving role of imaging modalities in inflammatory breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 2008;35(1):51–63. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244:356–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Newstead GM. MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18(2):225–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kuhl C, Schrading S, Bieling H, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370:485–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Morris E, Liberman L. Ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Morris E, Liberman L, editors. Breast MRI: diagnosis and intervention. Philadelphia: Springer; 2004. p. 164–72.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kumar AJ, Chen DF, Au A, Chen YY, Leung J, Garwood ER, et al. Biologic significance of false-positive magnetic resonance imaging enhancement in the setting of ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg. 2006;192(4):520–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Hillman BJ, Harms SE, Stevens G, Stough RG, Hollingsworth AB, Kozlowski KF, et al. Diagnostic performance of a dedicated 1.5-T breast MR imaging system. Radiology. 2012;265(1):51–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, Sesa L, Evers K, Sigurdson ER, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(2):180–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Sittart JA, Senise M. Cutaneous metastasis from internal carcinomas: a review of 45 years. An Bras Dermatol. 2013;88(4):541–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Harris JR, Morrow M, Bonnadonna G. Cancer of the breast. In: De Vitta Jr VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1993. p. 1264–332.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, et al. Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(5):852–63.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Espie M, Vercellino L, Hamy AS, Delord M, et al. The yield of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with clinical stage IIA, IIB, or IIIA breast cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(10):1526–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Koolen BB, Peeters MJTFDV, Aukema TS, Vogel WV, Oldenburg HSA, van der Hage JA, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT as a staging procedure in primary stage II and III breast cancer: comparison with conventional imaging techniques. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131(1):117–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Aukema TS, Straver ME, Peeters MJ, Russell NS, Gilhuijs KG, Vogel WV, et al. Detection of extra-axillary lymph node involvement with FDG PET/CT in patients with stage II-III breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(18):3205–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Segaert I, Mottaghy F, Ceyssens S, De Wever W, Stroobants S, Van Ongeval C, et al. Additional value of PET-CT in staging of clinical stage IIB and III breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16(6):617–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Alberini JL, Lerebours F, Wartski M, Fourme E, Le Stanc E, Gontier E, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) imaging in the staging and prognosis of inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer. 2009;115(21):5038–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Carkaci S, Macapinlac HA, Cristofanilli M, Mawlawi O, Rohren E, Gonzalez Angulo AM, et al. Retrospective study of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer: preliminary data. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(2):231–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Yang WT, Le-Petross HT, Macapinlac H, Carkaci S, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Dawood S, et al. Inflammatory breast cancer: PET/CT, MRI, mammography, and sonography findings. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109(3):417–26.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Schirrmeister H. Detection of bone metastases in breast cancer by positron emission tomography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(4):669–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Nakai T, Okuyama C, Kubota T, Yamada K, Ushijima Y, Taniike K, et al. Pitfalls of FDG-PET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32(11):1253–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Groves AM, Shastry M, Ben-Haim S, Kayani I, Malhotra A, Davidson T, et al. Defining the role of PET-CT in staging early breast cancer. Oncologist. 2012;17(5):613–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Koolen BB, van der Leij F, Vogel WV, Rutgers EJ, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Elkhuizen PH, et al. Accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/CT for primary tumor visualization and staging in T1 breast cancer. Acta Oncol. 2014;53:50–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Heusner TA, Kuemmel S, Umutlu L, Koeninger A, Freudenberg LS, Hauth EA, et al. Breast cancer staging in a single session: whole-body PET/CT mammography. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(8):1215–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011;258(1):59–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Casey JJ, Stempel BG, Scanlon EF, Fry WA. The solitary pulmonary nodule in the patient with breast cancer. Surgery. 1984;96(4):801–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. McDonald ML, Deschamps C, Ilstrup DM, Allen MS, Trastek VF, Pairolero PC. Pulmonary resection for metastatic breast cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 1994;58(6):1599–602.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Singletary SE, Walsh G, Vauthey JN, Curley S, Sawaya R, Weber KL, et al. A role for curative surgery in the treatment of selected patients with metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist. 2003;8(3):241–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Hoe AL, Royle GT, Taylor I. Breast liver metastases–incidence, diagnosis and outcome. J R Soc Med. 1991;84(12):714–6.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Caudle A, Babiera GV. Primary tumor extirpation in stage IV disease: surgical considerations. In: Babiera GV, Skoracki RJ, Esteva FJ, editors. Advanced therapy of breast disease. Shelton: People’s Medical Publishing House; 2012. p. 1001–8.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Dubrow RA, David CL, Libshitz HI, Lorigan JG. Detection of hepatic metastases in breast cancer: the role of nonenhanced and enhanced CT scanning. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1990;14(3):366–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Kim H, Han W, Moon HG, et al. The value of preoperative staging chest computed tomography to detect asymptomatic lung and liver metastasis in patients with primary breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126(3):637–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Sheafor DH, Frederick MG, Paulson EK, et al. Comparison of unenhanced, hepatic arterial-dominant, and portal venous dominant phase helical CT for the detection of liver metastases in women with breast carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;4:961–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nishino M, Hayakawa K, Nakamura Y, Morimoto T, Mukaihara S. Effects of tamoxifen on hepatic fat content and the development of hepatic steatosis in patients with breast cancer: high frequency of involvement and rapid reversal after completion of tamoxifen therapy. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;1:129–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Roach H, Whipp E, Virjee J, et al. A Pictorial Review of the varied appearance of atypical liver metastasis from carcinoma of the breast. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:1098–103.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Kuerer H, Sahin A, Hunt K, Newman L, Breslin T, Ames F, Ross M, Buzdar A, Hortobagyi G. Incidence and impact of documented eradication of breast cancer axillary lymph node metastases before surgery in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg. 1999;230(1):72–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Rouzier R, Extra JM, Klijanienko J, Falcou MC, Asselain B, Vincent-Salomon A, et al. Incidence and prognostic significance of complete axillary downstaging after primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with T1 to T3 tumors and cytologically proven axillary metastatic lymph nodes. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(5):1304–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Hunt K, Yi M, Mittendorf E, Guerrero C, Babiera G, Bedrosian I, Hwang R, Kuerer H, Ross M, Meric-Bernstam F. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is accurate and reduces the need for axillary dissection in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250(4):558–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Boughey JC, Suman VJ, Mittendorf EA, Ahrendt GM, Wilke LG, Taback B, et al. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z1071 clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310(14):1455–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Dawood S, Broglio K, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN, Giordano SH. Trends in survival over the past two decades among white and black patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:4891–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 155 Pressler St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    H. Carisa Le-Petross MD, FRCPC

  2. Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Abigail S. Caudle MD, MS

Authors
  1. H. Carisa Le-Petross MD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abigail S. Caudle MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Carisa Le-Petross MD, FRCPC .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Woman's Hospital of TexasWomen's Department of Radiology,, Baylor College of Medicine, Centre for Breast Care and MRI., Houston, Texas, USA

    Mahesh K Shetty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Le-Petross, H.C., Caudle, A.S. (2015). Staging of Breast Cancer. In: Shetty, M. (eds) Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1267-4_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1267-4_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1266-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1267-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation