Abstract
Background:
The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of radionuclide in diagnosis of bone metastasis (BM) after breast cancer surgery (BCS).
Methods:
The electronic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CBM, and CNKI) will be systematically and comprehensively searched until June 1, 2020 for eligible studies that reported the diagnosis of radionuclide in BM after BCS. In addition, we will also identify grey literatures, such as conference abstracts, and reference lists of included studies. All process of study identification, data extraction, and study methodological quality evaluation will be performed by 2 independent authors. All divergences will be settled by a third author through discussion. All data analysis will be carried out by RevMan 5.3 software (London, UK).
Results:
This study will scrutinize the most recent evidence of radionuclide in detection of BM after BCS.
Conclusion:
This study may provide evidence of accuracy of radionuclide in diagnosis of BM following BCS.
Study registration number:
PROSPERO CRD42020187646.
Keywords: breast cancer, bone metastasis, diagnosis, radionuclide
1. Introduction
Breast cancer (BC) is one of the most frequently diagnosed gynecological cancers,[1,2] which is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.[3,4] It is reported that about 90% to 95% patients are diagnosed at early stage and 20% to 30% of them have metastatic.[5] Bone metastatic (BM) is the most frequent metastases in patients with BC,[6,7] with >75% of stage IV BC develop to BM, which is incurable for these patients.[8,9] Thus, it is very to treat BC at early stage. Although surgery is a mostly utilized management for patients with BC, there are still some patients suffering from BM after surgery.[10] It is very important to detect BM in patients after breast cancer surgery (BCS).
Radionuclide is reported to diagnose BM after BCS.[11] Despite a variety of studies utilized to detect BM after BCS, it remains uncertain whether radionuclide is accurate in diagnosis for BM after BCS.[12–27] We therefore will perform a rigorous systematic review to comprehensively compare the accuracy of radionuclide with x-ray, or computed tomography, or magnetic resonance.
2. Methods
2.1. Study registration
This study protocol was registered at CRD42020187646. It is reported according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol statement.[28,29]
2.2. Eligibility criteria for study selection
Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they are case-control studies (CCSs) on radionuclide in detection of BM after BCS; included patients who were diagnosed as breast cancer; compared BM with x-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance, regardless age, race, and severity of breast cancers; and reported outcomes of sensitivity, specificity, false negative rate, false positive rate, likelihood ratio, misdiagnosis rate, and diagnostic odds ratio.
We will exclude studies of animal studies, review, case report, case series, and non-clinical studies; and studies that did not focus on the radionuclide in detection of BM after BCS.
2.3. Strategy of literature retrievals
A systematic and comprehensive search of electronic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CBM, and CNKI) will be performed until June 1, 2020. We will consider all eligible studies on the diagnosis of radionuclide in BM after BCS. The detailed search strategy is available for Cochrane Library in Table 1. We will create similar search strategies for other electronic databases. Besides the electronic databases, this study will also search grey literature, such as conference proceedings, websites of clinical trial registry, and reference lists of relevant studies.
Table 1.
Search strategy of Cochrane Library.
2.4. Study selection
Two independent authors will examine titles/abstracts of all searched records, and will eliminate irrelevant studies. We will carefully check full-text of all potential studies to determine whether such studies meet all eligible criteria. The results of study selection will be shown in a flow chart. Any disagreement will be solved by consultation or discussion with a third author.
2.5. Data extraction and management
Two independent authors will extract data from included CCSs using a priori designed form. It comprises of study characteristics (e.g., study name, source date, and country), participant demographics and characteristics (e.g., age, diagnostic criteria, and sample size), details of index and reference tests, outcomes, results, and findings. Any doubt between 2 authors will be interpreted by a third author through discussion. If missing or insufficient data is identified, we will contact original authors to request it. If it is not successful, we will analyze available data.
2.6. Study quality assessment
We will appraise study quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.[30] Two authors will independently perform it. If there are conflicts regarding study quality evaluation, we will resolve them through discussion.
2.7. Measurements of treatment effect
Continuous data will be estimated by weighted mean difference or standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); and dichotomous data will be estimated by risk ratio and 95% CIs.
2.8. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of this study will be completed using RevMan 5.3 software (London, UK). I2 test will be utilized to check statistical heterogeneity among included studies. I2 ≤ 50% denotes acceptable heterogeneity, and a fixed-effects model will be applied. If possible, we will also perform meta-analysis based on the sufficient similarity in study characteristics, patient demographic, and outcomes. I2 > 50% means significant heterogeneity, and a random-effects model will be placed. We will carry out subgroup analysis to explore sources of heterogeneity in accordance with different study information, patient characteristics, and study quality.
In addition, we will perform a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of uncertain parameters on primary findings, and to check its stability and robustness by excluding low quality studies. We will also conduct funnel plot[31] and Egger regression test[32] to identify reporting bias if 10 eligible studies are available.
3. Discussion
BC is a rising major gynecological disease around the world.[1,2] Although a range of studies reported the accuracy of radionuclide in diagnosis of BM in patients after BCS,[12–27] there is still limited evidence-based medicine evidence to support this point. Thus, this systematic review will critically investigate the accuracy of radionuclide in diagnosis of BM after BCS. The results of this study may yield evidence to help judge whether or not radionuclide is accurate in diagnosis of BM after BCS. Its findings may benefit clinical practice and patients, as well as associated researchers.
4. Ethics and dissemination
This study does not need ethic approval, because we will not collect individual patient data. The results of this study will be published on a peer-reviewed journal.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Qi-xin Lian, Lian-jin Jin, Hao-jie Nie.
Data curation: Wei Zhao, Gang Li, Lian-jin Jin, Hao-jie Nie.
Formal analysis: Qi-xin Lian, Gang Li.
Investigation: Hao-jie Nie.
Methodology: Qi-xin Lian, Wei Zhao, Gang Li, Lian-jin Jin.
Project administration: Hao-jie Nie.
Resources: Qi-xin Lian, Wei Zhao, Gang Li, Lian-jin Jin.
Software: Qi-xin Lian, Wei Zhao, Lian-jin Jin.
Supervision: Hao-jie Nie.
Validation: Qi-xin Lian, Wei Zhao, Hao-jie Nie.
Visualization: Wei Zhao, Lian-jin Jin, Hao-jie Nie.
Writing – original draft: Qi-xin Lian, Gang Li, Lian-jin Jin, Hao-jie Nie.
Writing – review & editing: Qi-xin Lian, Wei Zhao, Gang Li, Hao-jie Nie.
Footnotes
Abbreviations: BCS = breast cancer surgery, BC = breast cancer, BM = bone metastasis, CCSs = case-control studies, CIs = confidence intervals.
How to cite this article: Lian Qx, Zhao W, Li G, Jin Lj, Nie Hj. Diagnostic value of radionuclide in bone metastasis after breast cancer surgery: A protocol of systematic review. Medicine. 2020;99:33(e21585).
This study is supported by 2019 Basic Research Business Expenses Research Project of Heilongjiang Provincial Colleges and Universities (2019-KYYWFMY-0046). The funder had no role in the design, execution, or writing of the study.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
- [1].Sancho-Garnier H, Colonna M. Breast cancer epidemiology. Presse Med 2019;48:1076–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [2].Ahmad A. Breast cancer statistics: recent trends. Adv Exp Med Biol 2019;1152:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [3].Lacey JV, Jr, Devesa SS, Brinton LA. Recent trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality. Environ Mol Mutagen 2002;39:82–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [4].Porter PL. Global trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality. Salud Publica Mex 2009;51: suppl: s141–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [5].Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R, et al. Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3271–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [6].Yazdani A, Dorri S, Atashi A, et al. Bone metastasis prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 2019;13: 1178223419830978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [7].Wu Z, Lu J. Advances in treatment of metastatic breast cancer with bone metastasis. Chin Clin Oncol 2018;7:31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [8].Manders K, van de Poll-Franse LV, Creemers GJ, et al. Clinical management of women with metastatic breast cancer: a descriptive study according to age group. BMC Cancer 2006;6:179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [9].Coleman RE, Smith P, Rubens RD. Clinical course and prognostic factors following bone recurrence from breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1998;77:336–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [10].Altundag K. Breast cancer subtypes and local recurrence rate after surgery for bone metastasis to the extremities. J Surg Oncol 2018;117:1616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [11].Suzuki S. Early diagnosis for bone metastasis of breast cancer based on bone metabolism. Fukushima J Med Sci 1990;36:11–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [12].Wada T, Hohjoh T, Matunami N, et al. Clinical significance of bone scintigraphy for early detection of bone metastasis from breast cancer. Nihon Gan Chiryo Gakkai Shi 1989;24:781–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [13].Shigesawa T, Sugawara Y, Shinohara I, et al. Bone metastasis detected by FDG PET in a patient with breast cancer and fibrous dysplasia. Clin Nucl Med 2005;30:571–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [14].Al-Muqbel KM, Yaghan RJ. Value of baseline and follow-up whole-body bone scans in detecting bone metastasis in high-risk breast cancer patients. Nucl Med Commun 2013;34:577–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [15].Niikura N, Hashimoto J, Kazama T, et al. Diagnostic performance of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT and bone scintigraphy in breast cancer patients with suspected bone metastasis. Breast Cancer 2016;23:662–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [16].Al-Muqbel KM. Bone marrow metastasis is an early stage of bone metastasis in breast cancer detected clinically by F18-FDG-PET/CT imaging. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:9852632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [17].Xu R, Liu R, Mei HT. The diagnostic value of radionuclide bone imaging for breast cancer. Pract Clin Med 2005;12:163–5. [Google Scholar]
- [18].Wu XH, Xie JP, Li SP. Clinical value of radionuclide bone imaging in the diagnosis of bone metastases. Chongqing Med 2005;8:1128–9. [Google Scholar]
- [19].Lin Y, Zhao SP, Chen ZY, et al. The clinical value of ∼(99m)Tc-MDP bone imaging in the diagnosis of bone metastases. J West China Med Univ 2002;4:650–1. [Google Scholar]
- [20].Ren ZG, Liu F, Liu SH, et al. Application of radionuclide whole body bone imaging in the diagnosis of bone metastases. Guangzhou Med 2001;1:54–5. [Google Scholar]
- [21].Han JG, Zhang RY, Liang RS, et al. The clinical value of radionuclide in the diagnosis of breast cancer bone metastasis. Mod Diag and Treatment 1999;6:361–2. [Google Scholar]
- [22].Chang GJ, Shi PP. Diagnostic analysis of radionuclide bone imaging for bone metastases in the elderly. Xinjiang Med 1998;3:179–81. [Google Scholar]
- [23].Xia L, Lu DY, Cheng XJ. The clinical significance of 99mTc-MDP radionuclide imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer bone metastasis. Chin J Endemic Dis Prev Treat 2017;32:922. [Google Scholar]
- [24].Chen M, Liu C, Wang H, et al. The clinical value of radionuclide bone imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer bone metastasis. J Oncology 2013;19:657–9. [Google Scholar]
- [25].Yu HL, Xie HQ, Wang HJ, et al. (99m) Tc-MDP systemic bone imaging for the diagnosis of bone metastases. Chin J Pract Med 2011;6:88–9. [Google Scholar]
- [26].Xue H. Clinical value of radionuclide systemic bone imaging in diagnosis of bone metastasis. Qinghai Med J 2011;41:67–8. [Google Scholar]
- [27].Zhou AQ, Chen ZJ, Wang XQ, et al. The diagnostic value of radionuclide bone imaging for breast cancer bone metastasis. Jiangxi Med 2006;3:176–7. [Google Scholar]
- [28].Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [29].Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [30].Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [31].Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, et al. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 2000;320:1574–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- [32].Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]