Download PDF
Zentralbl Gynakol 2004; 126(4): 275-279
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-822753
Originalarbeit

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Ein perioperatives Screening auf Metastasen ist bei Patientinnen mit einem primär operablem Mammakarzinom und fehlender klinischer Symptomatik einer Metastasierung nicht indiziert

A Perioperative Screening for Metastatic Disease is not Indicated in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer and no Clinical Signs of Tumor SpreadB. Gerber1 , E. Seitz2 , H. Müller2 , A. Krause1 , T. Reimer2 , W. Janni1 , G. Kundt3 , K. Friese1
  • 1I. Frauenklinik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München
  • 2Frauenklinik der Universität Rostock, Rostock
  • 3Institute für Medizinische Statistik und Informatik der Universität Rostock, Rostock, Deutschland
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 August 2004 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Fragestellung: Ist ein perioperatives Screening auf Fernmetastasen bei Patientinnen mit einem primär operablen Mammakarzinom und fehlender klinischer Symptomatik indiziert?
Patientinnen und Methoden: Bei 1 076 Mammakarzinompatientinnen ohne klinischen Metastasenverdacht wurden die Befunde der perioperativen Screeninguntersuchungen (Röntgen-Thorax, Lebersonographie, Skelettszintigraphie) auf die Prognose, adjuvante Therapie, Lebensqualität und Kosten analysiert.
Ergebnisse: Die perioperativen Staginguntersuchungen ergaben bei 30 (2,8 %) Patientinnen Fernmetastasen, 130 (12,1 %) suspekte Befunde und 916 (85,1 %) normale Befunde. Die weiterführenden Untersuchungen bei den 130 Patientinnen mit suspekten Befunden ergaben Fernmetastasen in 7 (5,4 %) und schlossen diese in 123 (94,6 %) Fällen aus. Fernmetastasen wurden häufiger mit steigender Tumorgröße (pT ≤ 2,0 cm: 1,6 %, pT 2,1-5,0 cm: 3,0 %, pT > 5,0 cm: 15,1 %; p < 0,001) und Anzahl befallener Lymphknoten (pN0: 1,4 %, pN1-3 +: 1,8 %, pN4-9 +: 4,0 %, pN > 10 +: 12,5 %; p < 0,001) nachgewiesen. Falsch positive Befunde mit der Ungewissheit über die Erkrankungssituation führten bei 123 (11,4 %) aller Patientinnen zu einer verminderten Lebensqualität. Der Verzicht auf perioperative Screeninguntersuchungen wäre ohne therapeutische Nachteile und würde Kosten von minimal € 259 366,68 sparen.
Schlussfolgerung: Bei Brustkrebspatientinnen ohne klinische Hinweise auf eine Fernmetastasierung ist ein perioperatives Metastasenscreening wegen fehlender therapeutischer Konsequenzen, häufig falsch positiver Befunde mit Verminderung der Lebensqualität und hoher Kosten nicht indiziert.

Abstract

Objective: Is a perioperative metastatic screening programme 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 analysed in 1 076 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 tumor size (pT ≤ 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: 1.4 %, pN1-3 +: 1.8 %, pN4-9 +: 4.0 %, pN > 10 +: 12.5 %; 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 1 076 patients saves costs of at least € 259 366.68.
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.

Schlüsselwörter

Brustkrebs - Staging - Fernmetastasierung - Kosten - Behandlung

Key words

Breast cancer - staging - metastatic disease - costs - treatment

Literatur

  • 1 Barry M C, Thornton F, Murphy M, Younis F, Watson R G. The value of metastatic screening in early primary breast cancer.  Ir J Med Sci. 1999;  168 248-250
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 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. 2001;  85 367-371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bruneton J N, Balu-Maestro C, Raffaelli C, Mourou M Y, Cambon P, Granon C. Indications for hepatic ultrasonography in breast cancer staging and follow-up.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;  37 115-121
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Chen E A, Carlson G A, Coughlin B F, Reed W PJ, Garb J L, Frank J L. Routine chest roentgenography is unnecessary in the work-up of stage I and II breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2000;  18 3503-3506
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Cooke A L. Baseline staging tests for breast cancer.  CMAJ. 2002;  166 419
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 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. 2001;  12 724-725
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Dillman R O, Chico S. Radiologic tests after a new diagnosis of breast cancer.  Eff Clin Pract. 2000;  3 1-6
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Donnelly J, Mack P, Donaldson L A. Follow-up of breast cancer: time for a new approach?.  Int J Clin Pract. 2001;  55 431-433
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 ESMO . ESMO Minimum Clinical Recommendations for diagnosis, adjuvant treatment and follow-up of primary breast cancer.  Ann Oncol. 2001;  12 1047-1048
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gerber B, Seitz E, Krause A, Müller H, Reimer T, Küchenmeister I, Kundt G, Friese K. A perioperative staging for distant metastases in primary operable breast cancer patients is indicated only in advanced cases.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;  82 29-37
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 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. 1994;  271 1587-1592
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Goldhirsch A, Glick J H, Gelber R D, Coates A, Senn H J. Meeting highlights: International consensus panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2003;  21 3357-3365
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Hadley D, Fowble B, Torosian M H. Evidence for selective use of bone scans in early stage breast cancer.  Oncol Rep. 1998;  5 991-993
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hoffken K. The European experience.  J Clin Oncol. 2001;  19 112S-117S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Myers R E, Johnston M, Pritchard K, Levine M, Oliver T. Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline.  CMAJ. 2001;  164 1439-1444
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Nabholtz J, Pienkowski T, Mackey J, Pawlicki M, Guastalla J P, 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 positive breast cancer patients: interim analysis of the BCIRG 001 study.  Proc ASCO. 2002;  21 36a
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 NIH .National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001; 5-15
  • 18 Niu Y, Fu X, Lv A, Fan Y, Wang Y. Potential markers predicting distant metastasis in axillary node-negative breast carcinoma.  Int J Cancer. 2002;  98 754-760
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Norum J, Andreassen T. Screening for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. What is cost-effective?.  Anticancer Res. 2000;  20 2193-2196
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Palli D, Russo A, Saieva C, Ciatto S, Rosselli D T, Distante V, Pacini P. Intensive vs clinical follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer: 10-year-update of a randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer Follow-up.  JAMA. 1999;  281 1586
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ravaioli A, Pasini G, Polselli A, Papi M, Tassinari D, Arcangeli V, Milandri C, Amadori D, Bravi M, Rossi D, Fattori P P, Pasquini E, Panzini I. Staging of breast cancer: new recommended standard procedure.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;  72 53-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 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. 2001;  19 1234
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Rojas M P, Telaro E, Russo A, Fossati R, Confalonieri C, Liberati A. Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; CD001768
  • 24 Rosselli D T, 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. 1994;  271 1593-1597
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Sakorafas G H, Tsiotou A G, Pavlakis G. Follow-up after primary treatment for breast cancer.  Acta Oncol. 2000;  39 935-940
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Samant R, Ganguly P. Staging investigations in patients with breast cancer: the role of bone scans and liver imaging.  Arch Surg. 1999;  134 551-553
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Sant M. Differences in stage and therapy for breast cancer across Europe.  Int J Cancer. 2001;  93 894-901
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Singletary S E, Allred C, Ashley P, Bassett L W, Berry D, Bland K I, Borgen P I, Clark G, Edge S B, Hayes D F, Hughes L L, Hutter R V, Morrow M, Page D L, Recht A, Theriault R L, Thor A, Weaver D L, Wieand H S, Greene F L. Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer.  J Clin Oncol. 2002;  20 3628-3636
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sittek H, de Waal C, Eiermann W, Engel J, Gauwerky J F, Hellemann H P. Screening und Diagnsotik. In: Mannual Mammakarzinom (Hrsg). 9. Aufl.Tumorzentrum München 2003; 28-40
  • 30 Tassinari D, Sartori S, Ravaioli A. Staging of breast cancer. Is the evidence so evident?.  Ann Oncol. 2001;  12 1653
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Vacek P M, Geller B M, Weaver D L, Foster R SJ. Increased mammography use and its impact on earlier breast cancer detection in Vermont, 1975-1999.  Cancer. 2002;  94 2160-2168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Will B P, Berthelot J M, Le Petit C, Tomiak E M, Verma S, Evans W K. Estimates of the lifetime costs of breast cancer treatment in Canada.  Eur J Cancer. 2000;  36 724-735
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Wingo P A, Ries L A, Giovino G A, Miller D S, Rosenberg H M, Shopland D R, Thun M J, Edwards B K. 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. 1999;  91 675-690
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Prof. Dr. med. Bernd Gerber

I. Frauenklinik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München,
Klinikum Innenstadt

Maistraße 11

80337 München

Phone: +49-89-51 60-41 30, -45 13, -42 50

Fax: +49-89-51 60-46 62

Email: bernd.gerber@med.uni-muenchen.de