Top

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Published in:

01-06-2004

Current role of bone scan with phosphonates in the follow-up of breast cancer

Authors: Lorenzo Maffioli, Luigia Florimonte, Luca Pagani, Ivana Butti, Isabel Roca

Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Special Issue 1/2004

Abstract

A number of studies have demonstrated that bone scintigraphy has high sensitivity and efficacy in the early detection of bone metastases from several tumours, including breast cancer. Bone scintigraphy is the most definitive tool for diagnosing and monitoring metastatic spread of breast cancer. However, in the past decade there has been a wide debate on its impact on survival time, morbidity and quality of life. Worldwide economic restrictions and these studies have led to the adoption of an almost minimalist policy for breast cancer follow-up using evidence-based guidelines. The recommended breast cancer surveillance testing includes only a few procedures (history, physical and breast self-examination, patient education on symptoms, pelvic examination). The routine use of additional tests, such as blood cell count, tumour markers, liver ultrasonography, bone scan and chest X-rays, is not recommended. Accordingly, scintigraphy should be reserved for a limited number of patients. On the other hand, early diagnosis of bone involvement may reduce the risk of skeletal related events, thus leading to a significant improvement in quality of life. Furthermore, new drugs (e.g. bisphosphonates) can now delay the onset of bone metastasis and reduce the number of patients who experience skeletal complications. In conclusion, the evidence of the clinical usefulness of bone scintigraphy (to allow early planning of new treatments in advanced disease) has to be re-evaluated, possibly by large randomised prospective trials.

Goldhirisch A, Gelber RD, Castiglione M for the Ludwig Breast Cancer Study Group. Relapse of breast cancer after adjuvant treatment in premenopausal and perimenopausal women: patterns and prognoses. J Clin Oncol 1997; 6:89–97.

Kamby K, Senegelov L. Pattern of dissemination and survival following isolated locoregional recurrence of breast cancer: a prospective study with more than 10 years of follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997; 45:181–192.CrossRefPubMed

Martin TJ, Moseley JM. Mechanisms in the skeletal complications of breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2000; 7:271–284.PubMed

Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Lipton A, et al. Long-term prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:2038–2044.PubMed

Cook RJ, Major P. Methodology for treatment evaluation in patients with cancer metastatic to bone. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93:534–538.CrossRefPubMed

Mundy G. Metastatic bone disease. In: Fogelman I, ed. Bone remodelling and its disorders. London: Martin Dunitz; 1995:104–122.

Corcoran RJ, Thrall JH, Kyle RW, Kaminski RJ, Johnson MC. Solitary abnormalities in bone scans of patients with extraosseous malignancies. Radiology 1976; 121(3 pt 1):663–667.

Batson OV. Function of vertebral veins and their role in spread and metastases. Ann Surg 1940; 112:138–149.

Morgan-Parkes JH. Metastases: mechanism, pathways, and cases. AJR 1995; 164:1075–1082.

10.

O’Sullivan JM, Cook GJR. A review of the efficacy of bone scanning in prostate and breast cancer. Q J Nucl Med 2002; 46:152–159.PubMed

11.

Valagussa P, Bonadonna G, Veronesi U. Patterns of relapse and survival following radical mastectomy. Cancer 1978; 41:1170–1178.PubMed

12.

Coleman SJ, Rubens RD. The clinical course of bone metastasis from breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1987; 55:61–66.PubMed

13.

Kamby C. The pattern of metastases in human breast cancer: methodological aspects and influence of prognostic factors. Cancer Treat Rev 1990; 17:37–61.

14.

Bombardieri E, Aktolun C, Baum RP, Bishof-Delaloye A, Buscombe J, Chatal JF, Maffioli L, Moncayo R, Mortelmans L, Reske SN. Bone scintigraphy procedures guidelines for tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30:BP99–BP106.PubMed

15.

Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Bombardieri E, Buraggi GL. Bone scintigraphy in breast cancer: a ten years follow up study. J Nucl Biol Med 1993; 37:57–61.PubMed

16.

Algra PR, Heimans JH, Valk J, Nauta JJ, Lachniet M, Van Kooten B. Do metastases in vertebrae begin in the body or the pedicles? A J R Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158:1275–1279.

17.

Savelli G, Maffioli L, Maccauro M, De Deckere E, Bombardieri E. Bone scintigraphy and the added value of SPET (single photon emission tomography) in detecting skeletal lesions. Q J Nucl Med 2001; 45:27–37.PubMed

18.

Forza Operativa Nazionale sul Carcinoma Mammario (FONCaM). Linee guida sulla diagnosi, il trattamento e la ribilitazione. In: www.senologia.it/foncam/

19.

Loprinzi CC, Hayes D, Smith T. Doc, shouldn’t we be getting some tests? J Clin Oncol 2003; 21:108s–111s.CrossRef

20.

Cocconi G. Follow up of patients with breast cancer (letter). JAMA 1994; 272:1657–1658.

21.

Crippa F, Bombardieri E, Seregni E, Castellani MR, Gasparini M, Maffioli L, Pizzichetta M, Buraggi GL. Single determination of CA15.3 and bone scintigraphy in the diagnosis of skeletal metastases of breast cancer. J Nucl Biol Med 1992; 36:52–55.

22.

Nicolini A, Ferrari P, Sagripanti A, Carpi A. The role of tumour markers in predicting skeletal metastases in breast cancer patients with equivocal bone scintigraphy. Br J Cancer 1999; 79:1443–1447.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bombardieri E, Martinetti A, Miceli R, Mariani L, Castellani MR, Seregni E. Can bone metabolism markers be adopted as an alternative to scintigraphic imaging in monitoring bone metastases from breast cancer? Eur J Nucl Med 1997; 24:1349–1355.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Younsi N, Montravers F, Philippe C, Seddiki M, Uzan S, Izrael V, Talbot JN. CA15.3 and bone scintigraphy in the follow up of breast cancer. Int J Biol Markers 1997; 12:154–157.PubMed

25.

Schapira DV, Urban N. A minimalist policy for breast cancer surveillance. JAMA 1991; 265:380–382.PubMed

26.

Wertheimer MD. Against minimalism in breast cancer follow-up. JAMA 1991; 265:396–397.PubMed

27.

Rosselli del Turco M, Palli D, Cariddi, Ciatto S, Pacini P, Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. JAMA 1994; 271:1593–1597.PubMed

28.

The GIVIO Investigators. Impact of follow-up testing on survival and health related quality of life in breast cancer patients. JAMA 1994; 271:1587–1592.PubMed

29.

Smith TJ, Davidson NE, Schapira DV, Grunfeld E, Muss HB, Vogel VG III, Sommefield MR for the ASCO Breast Cancer Surveillance Expert Panel. American Society of Clinical Oncology 1988 Update of recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:1080–1082.PubMed

30.

Jemal A, Murray T, Samuels A, Ghafoor A, Ward E, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53:5–26.

31.

Giordano SH, Buzdar AU, Smith TL, Kau S-W, Yang Y, Hortobagyi GN. Is breast cancer survival improving? Trends in survival for patients with recurrent breast cancer diagnosed from 1974 through 2000. Cancer 2004; 100:44–52.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Talbäck M, Stenbeck M, Rosén M, Barlow L, Glimelius B. Cancer survival in Sweden 1960–1998. Acta Oncol 2003; 42:637–659.PubMed

33.

Wikenheiser KA, Silberstein EB. Bone scintigraphy screening in stage I–II breast cancer: is it cost effective? Cleve Clin J Med 1996; 63:43–47PubMed

34.

Drummond MF, Bloom BS, Carrin G, et al. Issues in the cross-national assessment of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992; 8:671–682.PubMed

35.

Major PP, Cook R. Efficacy of bisphosphonates in the management of skeletal complications of bone metastases and selection of clinical endpoints. Am J Clin Oncol 2002; 25 (6 Suppl 1):S10–S18.

36.

Simon MC, Miron S, Severson RK, et al. Clinical surveillance of for early stage breast cancer. An analysis of claims data. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 40:119–128.PubMed

37.

Mille D, Roy T, Carrère M-O, Ray I, Ferdjaoui N, Späth H-M, Chauvin F, Philip T. Economic impact of harmonizing medical practices: compliance with clinical practice guidelines in the follow-up of breast cancer in a French comprehensive cancer center. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:1718–1724.PubMed

38.

Williams A. How should information on cost effectiveness influence clinical practice. In: Delamothe T, ed. Outcomes into clinical practice. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1994:99–107.

39.

Grenberg PA, Hortobagyi GN, Smith TL, Ziegler LD, Frye DK, Buzdar AU. Long-term follow-up of patient with completed remission following combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:2197–2205.PubMed

40.

Nieto Y, Nawaz S, Jones RB, et al. Prognostic model for relapse after high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation for stage IV oligometastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:707–718.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Porter L, et al. Efficacy of pamidronate in reducing skeletal complication in patients with breast cancer and lytic bone metastasis. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:1785–1791.

42.

Hortobagyi GN. Can we cure limited metastatic breast cancer? J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:620–623.PubMed

43.

Chen HHW, Su WC, Guo HR, Lee BF, Su WR, Wu PS, Chiu NT. Clinical significance and outcome of one or two rib lesions on bone scans in breast cancer patients without metastases. Nucl Med Commun 2003; 24:1167–1174.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Lipton A. Bisphosphonates and metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 97 (3 Suppl):848–853.

45.

Riccardi A, Grasso D, Danova M. Bisphosphonates in oncology: physiopathology bases and clinical activity. Tumori 2003; 89:223–236.

46.

Kanis JA. Bone and cancer. Pathophysiology and treatment of metastases. Bone 1995; 17:S101–S105.CrossRef

47.

Nemoto R, Uchida K, Tsutsumi M, et al. A model of localized osteolysis induced by the MBT-2 tumor in mice and its responsiveness to etidronate disodium. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 1987; 113:539–543.PubMed

48.

Colleoni M, O’Neill A, Goldhirsh A, et al. for the International (Ludwig) Breast Cancer Group. Identifying breast cancer patients at high risk for bone metastases. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:3925–3935.PubMed

49.

Hillner BE, Ingle JN, Berenson JR, Janjan NA, Albani KS, Lipton A, Yee G, Bierman JS, Chlebowski RT, Pfister DG for the American Society of Clinical Oncology Bisphosphonate Expert Panel. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18:1378–1391.PubMed

50.

Plunkett TA, Smith P, Rubens RD. Risk of complications from bone metastases in breast cancer: implications for management. Eur J Cancer 2000; 36:476–482.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Koizumi M, Matsumoto S, Takahashi S, Yamashita T, Ogata E. Bone metabolic markers in the evaluation of bone scan flare phenomenon in bone metastases of breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 1999; 24:15–20.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Vogel CL, Schoenfelder J, Shemano I, Hayes DF, Gams RA. Worsening bone scan in the evaluation of antitumor response during hormonal therapy of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13:1123–1128.PubMed

53.

Cook GJ, Fogelman I. The role of nuclear medicine in monitoring treatment in skeletal malignancy. Semin Nucl Med 2001; 31:206–211.PubMed

Title: Current role of bone scan with phosphonates in the follow-up of breast cancer
Authors: Lorenzo Maffioli
Luigia Florimonte
Luca Pagani
Ivana Butti
Isabel Roca
Publication date: 01-06-2004
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Issue Special Issue 1/2004
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Electronic ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-004-1537-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Current role of bone scan with phosphonates in the follow-up of breast cancer

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Special Issue 1/2004

The curability of breast cancer and the treatment of advanced disease

FDG-PET for axillary lymph node staging in primary breast cancer

The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management

FDG PET and other imaging modalities in the primary diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions

Breast scintigraphy today: indications and limitations

FDG-PET in monitoring therapy of breast cancer