Abstract
Background
There is wide variation in the approach to staging for distant metastatic disease in breast cancer. This study sought to identify factors predictive of distant metastatic disease at presentation to enable appropriate selection of patients for pretreatment CT.
Methods
Data were collected retrospectively for all patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer (screening and symptomatic) over 3 years (2014–2017). Detailed demographic, pathological, biological, and management data were recorded at presentation, and outcome data were recorded after follow-up. Binomial logistic regression was used to identify variables independently associated with distant metastatic disease at presentation.
Results
A total of 1377 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were identified, of whom 1025 had complete data; 323 staging CT examinations were performed. Distant metastases were identified at presentation in 47 (4.6 per cent). Some 30 of 47 patients with metastatic disease met established criteria for staging (T4, recurrence, symptoms of possible distant metastases), leaving 17 patients with metastatic disease potentially missed by use of these criteria alone. Multivariable analysis showed that tumour size at least 3 cm combined with sonographically abnormal axillary lymph nodes predicted a high probability of distant metastatic disease at presentation (positive predictive value 18.8 per cent, odds ratio 4.83, P < 0.001). Addition of this criterion increased the positive CT rate to 17.1 per cent.
Conclusion
Selective pretreatment CT staging can be further optimized with the addition of tumour size at least 3 cm with abnormal axillary nodes to established staging criteria.
Graphical Abstract
Introduction
Identification of distant metastatic disease from breast cancer is important when planning treatment and considering patient prognosis. Selecting the correct asymptomatic patients for staging investigations can prove challenging, given the low incidence of metastases in this group at initial presentation, which is around 4 per cent1. Different approaches to systemic staging exist even within a single healthcare system2.
Current European staging guidelines are summarized in Table 1. These are quite disparate, with the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) only clearly advocating staging of stage IV disease or patients with symptoms, whereas other groups use broader terms such as ‘aggressive biology’3,4,7. Many sources agree that routine staging is not recommended for asymptomatic early breast cancer10–12 owing to the low prevalence of metastatic disease in these patients11,13–16. Many of these studies, however, are based on modalities such as chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound imaging, which are less sensitive than CT and PET–CT17–22. It is recognized that locally advanced disease carries a higher risk of concurrent distant metastases22, but this is a non-specific term, and there is no consensus regarding a threshold tumour size, level of lymph node involvement or pathological stage at which a search for distant metastatic disease should be performed.
Table 1.
Summarized current European guidelines on systemic staging for breast cancer
| Summarized guidance on which patients should be staged | |
|---|---|
| National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) CG813 | Assess for the presence and extent of metastases in advanced breast cancer (stage IV) using appropriate modalities |
| National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) QS124 | People with early invasive breast cancer do not undergo staging investigations for distant metastatic disease in the absence of symptoms |
| The Royal College of Radiologists (RCR)20 (Guidelines adopted by The Association of Breast Surgery (ABS)19) |
Indications for staging:
• T3 and T4 primary cancers • > 4 abnormal nodes at axillary ultrasonography or > 4 macrometastatic nodes at axillary surgery • If symptoms raise the suspicion of metastatic disease At present, there is no evidence base for carrying out staging before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in <T2 tumours with <N1 disease |
| London Cancer Surgical guidelines21 |
Indications for staging using CT and isotope bone scan:
• Symptoms suggestive of metastases • Recurrent disease • Significant nodal involvement (e.g., ≥ 4 nodes) • As part of an approved clinical trial • Inflammatory breast cancer • Locally advanced disease • Large primary tumours (e.g., > 5cm) |
| European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)5 |
Staging can be considered for patients with:
• Clinically positive axillary nodes • Large tumours (e.g., ≥ 5 cm) • Aggressive biology • Clinical signs, symptoms or laboratory values suggesting presence of metastases |
| National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)32 |
Consider staging with body CT, bone scan and (optional) PET–CT for:
• Signs or symptoms of possible metastases • Stage IV disease • Inflammatory breast cancer • Work-up before preoperative systemic therapy • >4 positive axillary nodes at surgery Routine systemic staging is not indicated for early breast cancer in the absence of symptoms |
NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; CG, Clinical Guideline; QS, Quality Standard; ESMO, European Society for Medical Oncology; ABS, Association of Breast Surgery; NCCN, National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Although symptoms of possible metastatic disease, recurrent and T4 disease seem widely advocated5,6,8, some groups now include T3 disease (tumour size 5 cm or more)5–7 and some include unexpected heavy burden of nodal involvement (such as at least 4 nodes) at axillary surgery as justification for investigation for distant metastases5,6.
CT of the chest, abdomen and pelvis is widely used5, yet recent studies in asymptomatic women found a higher false-positive rate (10–25 per cent in 2 studies) than true-positive rate (2–9 per cent) for distant metastases when used in only early-stage disease, and concluded that a more selective approach was necessary23–25. PET–CT appears to increase the rate of detection of distant disease, but is currently recommended only where other investigations are suspicious but not diagnostic for metastases3,20,22.
The relevance of locoregional disease in predicting the likelihood of distant disease has not been studied extensively. A recent analysis of 204 patients with stage I or II breast cancer who underwent staging with CT and/or MRI and/or bone scan identified lymph node involvement and stage IIb disease as risk factors for an increased incidence of distant metastases19. An abstract26 published in 2019 reported a 10 per cent incidence of distant disease among 163 patients selected for neoadjuvant chemotherapy who underwent staging CT, as well as a correlation between increasing T category and metastatic disease in patients with clinically node-negative disease. Two other studies27,28 also found similar significant correlations between the presence of metastatic disease and increasing tumour size and nodal involvement. These studies have a variety of limitations including sample size, heterogeneity of imaging used and selection biases, for example including only those selected for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
The present study aimed to identify factors predictive of distant metastatic disease at presentation in order to refine current guidelines and select appropriate patients for CT staging.
Methods
Data were collected for all patients presenting with new invasive breast cancer (including first diagnoses and recurrent disease) at a UK teaching hospital over a 3-year period, from January 2014 to January 2017. The patients studied were a mixed symptomatic and National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Programme cohort. The study was registered electronically and approved on the Trust Safeguard system as Service Evaluation (SEV0140) in accordance with local governance policy. No other ethical permissions were required because the study evaluated the current service using existing data, an intervention already in use according to established local protocols, and involved no allocation and no randomization.
Information was extracted retrospectively from computer-based records of radiology and pathology reports, clinical letters and the radiology information system. A panel of demographic, radiological, pathological, and biological parameters, along with staging investigations, surgical and systemic management, and outcomes were recorded at presentation and during follow-up. For follow-up, records were examined from the time of diagnosis up to the time of data collection. The TNM version from the eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual was used29. A standardized data collection pro forma was used (Table S1). Data were collated and analysed in an Excel® spreadsheet (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington USA).
Standard practice was for all patients with breast cancer to be investigated with mammography, breast ultrasound imaging and axillary ultrasonography in accordance with NICE guidance4,30. Axillary lymph nodes were categorized as abnormal if they demonstrated any of the following features: entirely hypoechoic (loss of fatty hilum), cortex larger than 3 mm, focal cortical bulge, short–long axis ratio over 0.5 (rounded), or entirely replaced by a mass. If the operator was unsure, nodes could be classified as equivocal at their discretion. In all instances of abnormal or equivocal nodes, standard practice was to perform needle sampling of the nodes where practicable.
Results of staging CT examinations were stratified as: no distant metastases, definite evidence of distant metastases, indeterminate findings later proven not to be metastatic, or indeterminate findings later proven to be distant metastases. Patients with indeterminate features that were subsequently shown not to be metastatic were considered to have false-positive/incidental findings. Scans were classified as either pretreatment or postoperative, and were only recorded as such if done within 3 months of the diagnosis or surgery respectively. Investigations performed later in the patient pathway were not classified as initial staging examinations.
Patients with non-invasive disease or with incomplete data because of treatment provision elsewhere were excluded. Before binomial logistic regression analyses, further exclusions were applied to produce a reliable data set: these were patients with no imaging, occult tumour, tumour size not recorded, no axillary ultrasonography, no breast core biopsy, lost to follow-up abroad, and another concurrent metastatic cancer during the study period (Fig. S1). Those with a history of previous ipsilateral breast cancer were excluded from all regression analyses, except analyses looking specifically at possible ipsilateral recurrence.
Statistical analysis
Positive (PPV) and negative predictive values were derived systematically for each variable. Binomial logistic regression analyses were performed using RegressIt™ software (Robert Nau, Professor Emeritus in the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University, North Carolina, USA) to identify variables independently associated with metastatic disease at presentation. Odds ratios (ORs), 95 per cent confidence intervals, P values, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were calculated. Results were considered statistically significant at P < 0.050 (2-sided). Based on the results of multivariable analysis, data modelling was undertaken to calculate the projected number of CT examinations and positive pick-up rate of these for different sets of staging criteria.
Results
Over a 3-year period, 1377 patients with a new diagnosis of invasive breast cancer were seen. There were 352 with incomplete data who were excluded. Of the remaining 1025 patients, the pathways of presentation were: 394 patients via the NHS Breast Screening Programme, 604 via symptomatic one-stop clinics, nine via surveillance imaging for either high risk family history or post-cancer surveillance, and 18 patients were incidentally found to have a breast mass on cross-sectional imaging. There were five men and 1020 women. The mean age at presentation was 62.6 (range 26–99) years. Other patient features and disease characteristics are shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Patient features and disease characteristics at presentation of 1025 patients in data set
| No. of patients | % staged with CT before treatment or after surgery | |
|---|---|---|
| (n = 1025) | ||
| Personal or family history | ||
| Previous ipsilateral breast cancer | 51 (5.0) | 77 |
| Previous contralateral breast cancer | 38 (3.7) | 55 |
| Low- or moderate-risk family history | 119 (11.6) | 29.4 |
| High-risk family history (including BRCA) | 12 (1.2) | 75 |
| T category | ||
| T1 | 482 (47.0) | 19.1 |
| T2 | 389 (38.0) | 36.5 |
| T3 | 45 (4.4) | 51 |
| T4 | 86 (8.4) | 65 |
| Specific imaging characteristics | ||
| Inflammatory cancer | 13 (1.3) | 100 |
| Multifocal cancer | 185 (18.0) | 50.3 |
| Abnormal or equivocal axillary nodes on ultrasonography | 267 (26.0) | 73.0 |
| Histology | ||
| Invasive ductal carcinoma of no special type | 777 (75.8) | 34.4 |
| Invasive lobular carcinoma | 87 (8.5) | 25 |
| Mixed or other disease | 161 (15.7) | 21.1 |
| Histological grade | ||
| 1 | 158 (15.4) | 17.7 |
| 2 | 536 (52.3) | 28.0 |
| 3 | 295 (28.8) | 49.2 |
| Specific molecular subtype | ||
| Triple receptor-negative | 104 (10.1) | 55.8 |
| All HER2-positive disease | 114 (11.1) | 37.7 |
| ER-negative, HER2-positive | 48 (4.7) | 52 |
| Other features | ||
| Symptoms of possible metastatic disease at presentation (e.g., bone pain) | 29 (2.8) | 90 |
Values in parentheses are percentages. HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ER, oestrogen receptor.
Only one patient did not have imaging owing to poor performance status. In five patients, disease in the breast was occult on conventional imaging. A numerical tumour size or disease extent was given in the imaging reports for 1002 patients (97.8 per cent), allowing accurate clinical T assignment.
Some 1015 patients (99.0 per cent) underwent axillary ultrasound examination to assess nodal status. The reasons for not imaging the axilla in ten patients included high BMI, poor mobility, and poor performance status. There were 267 patients with possible or probable nodal involvement identified on axillary ultrasonography: 79 with one abnormal node; 105 with multiple (more than 1) abnormal nodes; 13 with an axillary nodal mass less than 2.5 cm; three with multiple axillary plus internal mammary, supraclavicular or contralateral axillary nodal abnormalities; and 67 with equivocal axillary nodes.
Among 267 patients with possible or probable nodal abnormality, 213 (79.8 per cent) had nodal sampling (194 fine-needle aspirations and 19 core biopsies). The reasons for not performing needle sampling in 54 patients were poor performance status with low likelihood of primary surgical management, or nodes deemed too difficult to access owing to body habitus. Needle sampling of the axillary nodes was positive for metastatic involvement in 114 (53.5 per cent), benign in 62 (29.1 per cent), and inadequate in 37 patients (17.4 per cent). For the purposes of ongoing analysis, node status was downgraded to normal where there was a benign result from patients with nodes initially categorized as equivocal or one abnormal node. Node status was upgraded or confirmed to be abnormal where metastatic involvement was detected by sampling. An insufficient sampling result was disregarded for the purposes of analysis; for these and any patient who did not undergo sampling, categorization was based on sonographic appearances only.
MRI staging was performed in selected patients in whom there was uncertainty over disease extent on conventional imaging, or a diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma was made before anticipated breast conservation surgery.
A total of 323 staging CT examinations were undertaken, of which 259 were pretreatment and 46 immediately postoperative. In 18, the CTs were performed for an alternative indication, prior to knowledge of a breast lesion, with a breast mass detected on the CT. Indications for staging were: T4 disease, ipsilateral recurrent cancer, symptoms of possible metastatic disease, and any number of radiologically abnormal lymph nodes, in accordance with evidence-based local guidance. Selected patients recommended for neoadjuvant chemotherapy also underwent CT staging.
There were 47 patients identified with distant metastatic disease at presentation among the 1025 studied (4.6 per cent incidence), in line with national incidence data31. The overall positive pick-up rate of staging CT was 14.6 per cent (47 of 323). Metastatic deposits were identified in bone (21), liver (19), lung (19), adrenal (3), distant nodes (3), retroperitoneum (2), skin (2) and omentum (1), with figures in parentheses encompassing all instances of disease at these sites from patients with single- and multiple-organ disease.
Forty-seven CT examinations (14.6 per cent) with indeterminate results (such as small lung nodules requiring follow-up or indeterminate liver lesions requiring further imaging) were later proven not to show metastatic disease. These represent incidental findings/false-positives. In total, an additional 25 CT examinations, 17 ultrasound investigations, six nuclear medicine bone scans, five PET–CT scans, five MRI examinations, three fine-needle aspirations and two plain X-rays were done to investigate these findings. There were three findings of significance (6 per cent): an ovarian mucinous cystadenoma, a chondroid lesion of uncertain malignant potential, and evidence of heart failure.
Of 46 patients undergoing CT staging after surgery (owing to unexpected pN2+ disease at axillary surgery), three had distant metastatic disease (7 per cent pick-up rate).
After a mean follow-up of 26.8 months, 97 patients overall had a diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer; 50 additional patients were identified with distant disease during follow-up. Tumour characteristics of these 50 patients are shown in Fig. 1. Of these patients, 12 had no initial staging CT, and 38 had initial staging CT that did not identify metastatic disease. Triple-negative disease was over-represented, comprising 13 of 38 of this group with initially normal CT, whereas the prevalence of triple-negative disease in the whole data set was only 10.1 per cent.
Fig. 1.
Initial presenting features of 50 tumours with delayed presentation of metastatic disease
a Tumour size, b nodal appearance, c tumour receptors. HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ER, oestrogen receptor.
Predictive value of individual variables
Results of analyses to identify individual variables predictive of distant metastasis are presented in Tables 3 and 4. An increased incidence of distant metastatic disease at presentation was found for: inflammatory cancer; symptoms of possible metastatic disease; T4 disease; tumour size at least 3 cm, or at least 2 cm with abnormal nodes on axillary ultrasonography; oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive disease; patients staged before commencing neoadjuvant chemotherapy; and those with previous ipsilateral breast cancer. A tumour size threshold of at least 3 cm had the highest rate of detection for distant disease among tumour size criteria.
Table 3.
Incidence of metastatic disease in relation to specific variables
| No. of patients | % initially staged | Incidence of detected distant metastases (%) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| At presentation | After 26.8 months’ follow-up | |||
| Inflammatory breast cancer | 13 | 100 | 46 | 62 |
| Symptoms of possible metastases | 23 | 100 | 35 | 65 |
| T4 disease | 75 | 75 | 21 | 32 |
| Tumour size ≥ 3 cm and N1+ | 115 | 86.1 | 18.8 | 34.8 |
| ER-negative, HER2-positive | 46 | 54 | 17 | 26 |
| T2+N1+ | 154 | 85.1 | 16.9 | 32.5 |
| Before neoadjuvant chemotherapy | 78 | 96 | 17 | 31 |
| Ipsilateral recurrence | 41 | 95 | 15 | 29 |
| N1+ on axillary ultrasonography | 176 | 80.7 | 13.8 | 31.3 |
| Age ≤ 40 years | 54 | 67 | 11 | 30 |
| T3 disease | 44 | 52 | 9 | 18 |
| Previous contralateral cancer | 36 | 58 | 8 | 14 |
| Grade 3 | 295 | 49.2 | 8.0 | 19.7 |
| Multifocal disease | 172 | 54.1 | 6.4 | 16.9 |
| Triple-negative | 98 | 59 | 6 | 22 |
| T3 N0 disease | 19 | 16 | 6 | 16 |
| Lobular carcinoma | 85 | 26 | 6 | 12 |
| Family history of breast cancer | 126 | 34.9 | 0.8 | 8.7 |
| Lymphovascular invasion on initial core biopsy | 7 | 86 | 0 | 14 |
ER, oestrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.
Table 4.
Tumour size and nodal appearances: positive predictive values for distant metastatic disease
| No. of patients | PPV for distant metastatic disease (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Tumour size (cm)(T category disregarded) | ||
| < 2 | 482 | 1.2 |
| ≥ 2 | 483 | 7.2 |
| ≥ 3 | 229 | 11.4 |
| ≥ 4 | 115 | 11.3 |
| ≥ 5 | 44 | 9.1 |
| Nodal appearance | ||
| Normal | 748 | 1.9 |
| 1 abnormal node only | 82 | 11.0 |
| >1 (multiple) abnormal nodes | 113 | 15.9 |
| Axillary nodal mass > 25 mm | 12 | 8.3 |
PPV, positive predictive value.
Multivariable analyses
The results of multivariable analyses for individual variables are presented in Table 5. Variables showing a statistically significant independent association with the presence of metastatic disease were (in order of OR): symptomatic clinic (rather than screening) attenders (PPV 6.4 per cent, OR 19.56, P = 0.004, 604 patients), inflammatory breast cancer (PPV 46.2 per cent, OR 14.73, P < 0.001, 13 patients), symptoms of possible metastatic disease (PPV 34.8 per cent, OR 14.45, P < 0.001, 23 patients), T4 disease (PPV 21.3 per cent, OR 6.02–9.28, P < 0.001, 75 patients), N1+ disease (PPV 13.8 per cent, OR 8.58, P < 0.001, 176 patients), tumour size at least 3 cm (PPV 11.4 per cent, OR 4.12, P < 0.001, 229 patients), previous ipsilateral cancer (PPV 14.6 per cent, OR 3.69, P = 0.010, 41 patients), and ER-negative, HER2-positive disease (PPV 17.4 per cent, OR 3.06, P = 0.031, 46 patients), but not triple-negative disease (PPV 6.1 per cent, OR 1.14, P = 0.807, 98 patients).
Table 5.
Logistic regression coefficient estimates for four different models describing independent relationships between five or six variables and distant metastatic disease at presentation
| Coefficient | Standard error | z-statistic | P | Lower 95% confidence interval | Upper 95% confidence interval | Odds ratio | VIF | Standard coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 (n = 988), 6 variables, AUC 0.71 | |||||||||
| Constant | –3.479 | 0.267 | –13.054 | < 0.001 | –4.002 | –2.957 | |||
| Age ≥ 60 years | –0.252 | 0.325 | –0.777 | 0.437 | –0.889 | 0.385 | 0.78 | 1.019 | –0.069 |
| High–risk family history | –18.216 | 6754 | –0.003 | 0.998 | –13 256 | 13 220 | – | 1.014 | –1.101 |
| ILC or mixed ductal–lobular | 0.085 | 0.479 | 0.176 | 0.860 | –0.855 | 1.024 | 1.09 | 1.006 | 0.015 |
| Previous contralateral cancer | 0.816 | 0.655 | 1.245 | 0.213 | –0.468 | 2.100 | 2.26 | 1.002 | 0.084 |
| Previous ipsilateral cancer | 1.305 | 0.510 | 2.560 | 0.010 | 0.306 | 2.305 | 3.69 | 1.006 | 0.144 |
| T4 disease | 2.228 | 0.337 | 6.606 | < 0.001 | 1.567 | 2.889 | 9.28 | ||
| Model 2 (n = 947), 5 variables, AUC 0.81 | |||||||||
| Constant | –6.303 | 1.076 | –5.857 | < 0.001 | –8.412 | –4.194 | |||
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 0.291 | 0.476 | 0.611 | 0.541 | –0.643 | 1.225 | 1.34 | 1.009 | 0.068 |
| Inflammatory cancer | 2.690 | 0.617 | 4.361 | < 0.001 | 1.481 | 3.899 | 14.73 | 1.015 | 0.173 |
| Multifocality | 0.189 | 0.410 | 0.461 | 0.645 | –0.615 | 0.993 | 1.21 | 1.030 | 0.040 |
| Symptomatic clinic attender | 2.974 | 1.022 | 2.909 | 0.004 | 0.970 | 4.977 | 19.56 | 1.034 | 0.804 |
| Symptoms of distant metastases | 2.571 | 0.516 | 4.982 | < 0.001 | 1.560 | 3.583 | 13.08 | 1.009 | 0.219 |
| Model 3 (n = 947), 6 variables, AUC 0.80 | |||||||||
| Constant | –4.334 | 0.319 | –13.571 | < 0.001 | –4.960 | –3.708 | |||
| Age ≤ 40 years | 0.426 | 0.517 | 0.824 | 0.410 | –0.587 | 1.440 | 1.53 | 1.062 | 0.055 |
| Any abnormal nodes on ultrasonography | 2.150 | 0.387 | 5.555 | < 0.001 | 1.391 | 2.908 | 8.58 | 1.114 | 0.479 |
| Central tumour | –0.047 | 0.498 | –0.095 | 0.925 | –1.024 | 0.930 | 0.95 | 1.047 | –0.009 |
| Symptoms of distant metastases | 2.670 | 0.539 | 4.956 | < 0.001 | 1.614 | 3.726 | 14.45 | 1.007 | 0.227 |
| Synchronous bilateral cancers | 0.023 | 0.771 | 0.030 | 0.976 | –1.488 | 1.534 | 1.02 | 1.001 | 0.003 |
| T3 disease | 0.143 | 0.619 | 0.231 | 0.817 | –1.070 | 1.356 | 1.15 | 1.061 | 0.017 |
| Model 4 (n = 947), 6 variables, AUC 0.82 | |||||||||
| Constant | –4.433 | 0.324 | –13.693 | < 0.001 | –5.068 | –3.799 | |||
| Grade 3 | 0.509 | 0.398 | 1.281 | 0.200 | –0.270 | 1.289 | 1.66 | 1.311 | 0.128 |
| ER-negative, HER2-positive | 1.120 | 0.520 | 2.152 | 0.031 | 0.100 | 2.140 | 3.06 | 1.117 | 0.133 |
| Lymphovascular invasion on initial core biopsy | –18.280 | 5235 | –0.003 | 0.997 | –10 279 | 10 243 | – | 1.020 | –0.865 |
| T4 disease | 1.794 | 0.382 | 4.698 | < 0.001 | 1.046 | 2.543 | 6.02 | 1.043 | 0.268 |
| Triple-receptor negative | 0.130 | 0.532 | 0.245 | 0.807 | –0.913 | 1.173 | 1.14 | 1.192 | 0.022 |
| Tumour ≥ 3 cm | 1.416 | 0.380 | 3.730 | < 0.001 | 0.672 | 2.161 | 4.12 | 1.105 | 0.335 |
VIF, variance inflation factor; AUC, area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; ER, oestrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.
Sample sizes were small for lymphovascular invasion on core biopsy (7), inflammatory cancer (13), symptoms of possible metastatic disease (23), previous contralateral (36) or ipsilateral cancer (41), T3 disease (44), and ER-negative, HER2-positive disease (46).
The four variables with the greatest predictive value for distant metastatic disease were combined in the regression analysis presented in Table 6. Analysis of patients with tumour size >3cm and abnormal axillary nodes as a combined variable showed a greater positive predictive value for the presence of metastatic disease than each of these variables alone (PPV 18.8 per cent, OR 4.83, P <0.001, 115 patients).
Table 6.
Logistic regression coefficient estimates for models describing independent relationships between four variables and distant metastatic disease at presentation
| Coefficient | Standard error | z-statistic | P | Lower 95% | Upper 95% | Odds ratio | VIF | Standard coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | –4.335 | 0.287 | –15.125 | < 0.001 | –4.897 | –3.773 | |||
| ER-negative, HER2-positive | 1.261 | 0.514 | 2.452 | 0.014 | 0.253 | 2.270 | 3.53 | 1.029 | 0.150 |
| Symptoms of possible metastases | 2.794 | 0.556 | 5.024 | < 0.001 | 1.704 | 3.884 | 16.35 | 1.009 | 0.238 |
| Tumour ≥ 3 cm and N1+ | 1.575 | 0.400 | 3.939 | < 0.001 | 0.791 | 2.359 | 4.83 | 1.110 | 0.280 |
| T4 disease | 1.835 | 0.423 | 4.334 | < 0.001 | 1.005 | 2.665 | 6.27 | 1.080 | 0.274 |
The analysis included 947 patients; area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0.85. VIF, variance inflation factor; ER, oestrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.
Data modelling
Thirty of the 47 patients with metastatic disease found in this study met widely used criteria for imaging, leaving 17 cases (36 per cent) potentially missed. Metastatic disease was identified in these 17 patients as a result of local evidence-based practice to perform CT staging for all patients with abnormal axillary nodes (accounting for 14 of 17 patients) and multidisciplinary team decisions to stage when considering neoadjuvant chemotherapy (accounting for the remaining 3).
Using data on all 1025 patients, models of the projected outcomes of different staging strategies were constructed (Table 7). Modelling suggested that the addition of tumour size at least 3 cm with abnormal axillary nodes to existing staging criteria would lead to detection of a further nine patients (further 30 per cent) with distant metastatic disease. The models also suggest that this additional criterion would increase the positive CT rate to 17.1 per cent. With the subsequent addition of all patients referred for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the model predicted that a further three patients with metastatic disease would be detected.
Table 7.
Modelled data (1025 patients)
| Projected no. of pretreatment CT examinations | Metastatic disease detection rate of these CT examina tions (%) | Missed metastatic cases before treatment | Projected no. of postoperative CT examinations if performed for unexpected pN2+ disease | Metastatic disease detection rate of postoperative CT examinations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Model 1: London criteria
T4 Recurrence Symptoms of possible metastases |
151 | 19.9 | 17 | 86 | 7 |
|
Model 2
T4 Recurrence Symptoms of possible metastases Tumour ≥ 3 cm and N1+ |
228 | 17.1 | 8 | 56 | 5 |
|
Model 3
T4 Recurrence Symptoms of possible metastases Tumour ≥ 3 cm and N1+ Before NAC |
260 | 16.2 | 5 | 53 | 6 |
NAC, neoaduvant chemotherapy.
Discussion
Optimization of the criteria for CT staging is important in supporting identification of distant metastases, while minimizing potential harms including false-positives, unnecessary radiation dose, patient anxiety, and treatment delays.
Data from the present study indicate, like others, an increased risk of metastatic disease detection at presentation in those with symptoms suggestive of metastases, ipsilateral recurrent disease and T4 disease, but also a statistically significant increased risk in a selected group with tumour size at least 3 cm and concurrent abnormal axillary nodes. Another group19 has formed similar conclusions. The likelihood of CT detection of distant metastases in this additional patient group exceeded the rate of CT incidental findings/false-positives in the present study (14.6 per cent) and exceeds the threshold at which a majority of patients found it acceptable to undergo CT reported in a recent study32. Modelling suggests that its inclusion would reduce missed diagnoses of metastatic disease from an estimated 36 per cent to 17 per cent.
Analysis of patients based on their selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy is confounded by the intrinsic links between the decision regarding such therapy, and features such as tumour size, nodal involvement, and receptor status. A significant proportion of these patients have metastatic disease at presentation and consideration of CT staging in this group seems reasonable. However, patient selection for neoadjuvant chemotherapy is evolving, so ongoing reassessment of this practice will be required.
Interestingly, T3 disease was not a statistically significant additional predictor of distant metastases in this study, although it is important to state that the sample size was small, reflecting the mix of screening and symptomatic patients in the cohort. In the present study, the risk of distant disease peaked at tumour size 3 cm or greater, with risk reducing again at tumour sizes of greater than 4 or 5 cm.
Triple-negative disease (ER-, progesterone receptor-, and HER2-negative) is typically of higher grade and more aggressive than tumours with other receptor profiles. Surprisingly, the present study did not demonstrate a significantly increased risk of detecting distant disease at presentation in this group. However, triple-negative disease was over-represented in the small cohort with a normal staging CT result at presentation who developed visible metastatic disease during follow-up, the incidence of distant metastases in this subgroup later increasing to 22 per cent. This may reflect established survival curves for triple-negative disease, representing the cohort of patients who respond poorly to treatment and show progressive disease.
Abnormal appearance of the axillary nodes on initial ultrasound imaging carried an increased risk of detectable metastatic disease, especially for tumour sizes of 3 cm or greater. The present study is particularly informative regarding the predictive value of nodal abnormalities as local evidence-based policy advocated staging where there was imaging, histological or cytological evidence of nodal involvement. Although this creates the potential for bias, as nodal abnormality may have been over-represented in the staged cohort, the average duration of follow-up serves to minimize bias by identifying patients who may have been under-represented by the staging policy.
Potential limitations of this study included a relatively small sample of patients with metastatic disease (47 patients initially, rising to 97 at follow-up), as the prevalence of metastatic disease is low and the study cohort reliably reflected this. There is also likely to have been selection bias, as already discussed. It would not be ethical to perform CT for every patient presenting with breast cancer and so a degree of bias in referral for staging is inevitable. An assumption must therefore also be made that any patient not referred for CT staging at presentation does not have detectable metastatic disease. This is unlikely to be true for all patients, bearing in mind those who are proven to have metastatic disease at follow-up.
On the basis of the present results, currently accepted criteria for CT imaging to detect distant metastatic disease in patients with symptoms of possible metastatic disease, ipsilateral recurrent breast cancer and T4 disease continue to be appropriate. In addition, consideration should be given to CT in patients with a primary tumour size of at least 3 cm and a concurrent nodal abnormality on axillary ultrasonography.
CT staging should also be considered before commencing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, if not meeting the above criteria, although this aspect of staging practice requires regular re-evaluation given the gradual shift towards preoperative management with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
Requests for data sharing should be made to the corresponding author and will be considered by the authors. All release of data would be subject to relevant governance and hospital Trust approvals. Data generated during this study are included within the article and supplementary material information. E.C. has received honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Nanosring, and AstraZeneca. E.C. and R.I.C. have received research support through a model industry collaborative agreement between SECA and University Hospital Southampton.
Disclosure. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available at BJS Open online.
Contributor Information
N Roszkowski, Breast Imaging Unit, Princess Anne Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
S S Lam, Breast Imaging Unit, Princess Anne Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
E Copson, Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
R I Cutress, Cancer Sciences Academic Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK; Breast Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
R Oeppen, Breast Imaging Unit, Princess Anne Hospital, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Presented to the British Society of Breast Radiology Annual Scientific Meetings in November 2017 and November 2019 respectively
References
- 1. Schneider C, Fehr MK, Steiner RA, Hagen D, Haller U, Fink D. Frequency and distribution pattern of distant metastases in breast cancer patients at the time of primary presentation. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2003;269:9–12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Chand N, Cutress RI, Oeppen RS, Agrawal A. Staging investigations in breast cancer: collective opinion of UK breast surgeons. Int J Breast Cancer 2013;2013:506172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Advanced Breast Cancer: Diagnosis and Treatment (CG81). http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg81 (accessed 26 November 2020)
- 4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Breast Cancer (QS12). http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs12 (accessed 26 November 2020)
- 5. Royal College of Radiologists. Guidance on Screening and Symptomatic Breast Imaging (4th edn). https://www.rcr.ac.uk/publication/guidance-screening-and-symptomatic-breast-imaging-fourth-edition (accessed 26 November 2020)
- 6. London Cancer. London Cancer Surgical Guidelines for Breast Cancer. http://londoncancer.org/media/134465/Surgical-Guidelines-for-Breast-Cancer-November-2015.pdf (accessed 26 November 2020)
- 7. Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Rubio IT et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019;30:1194–1220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Association of Breast Surgery at BASO. Surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2009;35:S1–S22 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Telli ML, Gradishar WJ, Ward JH. NCCN guidelines updates: breast cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2019;17:552–555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future TNM. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:1471–1474 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Kim H, Han W, Moon HG, Min J, Ahn SK, Kim TY 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;126:637–641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Barrett T, Bowden DJ, Greenberg DC, Brown CH, Wishart GC, Britton PD. Radiological staging in breast cancer: which asymptomatic patients to image and how. Br J Cancer 2009;101:1522–1528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Tanaka S, Satu N, Fujioka H, Takahashi Y, Kimura K, Iwamoto M et al. Use of contrast-enhanced computed tomography in clinical staging of asymptomatic breast cancer patients to detect asymptomatic distant metastases. Oncol Lett 2012;3:772–776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Rusch P, Hoffmann O, Stickelmann AL, Bohmer Gatje R, Kruger KG et al. Distant metastasis detected by routine staging in breast cancer patients participating in the national German screening programme: consequences for clinical practice. Springerplus 2016;5:1010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Dull B, Linkugel A, Margenthaler JA, Cyr AE. Overuse of chest CT in patients with stage I and II breast cancer: an opportunity to increase guidelines compliance at an NCCN member institution. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2017;15:783–789 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Han W, Kim H, Lee J, Lee K, Moon H, Ko E et al. Value of preoperative staging of breast cancer patients using computed tomography to detect asymptomatic lung and liver metastasis. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Mohammed TL, Chowdhry A, Reddy GP, Amorosa J, Brown K, Dyer D et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Screening for pulmonary metastases. J Thorac Imaging 2011;26:W1–W3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Cantisani V, Grazhdani H, Fioravanti C, Rosignuolo M, Calliada F, Messineo D et al. Liver metastases: contrast-enhanced ultrasound compared with computed tomography and magnetic resonance. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:9998–10007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Soares GP, Pereira AAL, Boas MSV, Vaisberg VV, Magalhaes MCF, Linck RDM et al. Value of systemic staging in asymptomatic early breast cancer. Braz J Gynecol Obstet 2018;40:403–409 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Ulaner GA. PET/CT for patients with breast cancer: where is the clinical impact? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019;213:254–265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. McCartan DP, Prichard RS, MacDermott RJ, Rothwell RJ, Geraghty J, Evoy D et al. Role of bone scan in addition to CT in patients with breast cancer selected for systemic staging. Br J Surg 2016;103:839–844 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Brennan ME, Houssami N. Evaluation of the evidence on staging imaging for detection of asymptomatic distant metastases in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast 2012;21:112–123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. James J, Teo M, Ramachandran V, Law M, Stoney D, Cheng M. A critical review of the chest CT scans performed to detect asymptomatic synchronous metastasis in new and recurrent breast cancers. World J Surg Oncol 2019;17:40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. James J, Teo M, Ramachandran V, Law M, Stoney D, Cheng M. Performance of CT scan of abdomen and pelvis in detecting asymptomatic synchronous metastasis in breast cancer. Int J Surg 2017;46:164–169 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. James JJ, McMahon MA, Tennant SL, Cornford EJ. CT staging for breast cancer patients with poor prognostic tumours. Breast 2012;21:735–738 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Broadbent R, Armstrong A, O’Brien C, Wardley AM, Wilson G, Ralston S et al. The incidence of metastases detected on a staging CT prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2019;30:iii35–iii36. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ravaioli A, Pasini G, Polselli A, Papi M, Tassinari D, Arcangeli V et al. Staging of breast cancer: new recommended standard procedure. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;72:53–60 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Ravaioli A, Tassinari D, Pasini G, Polselli A, Papi M, Fattori PP et al. Staging of breast cancer: what standards should be used in research and clinical practice? Ann Oncol 1998;9:1173–1177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (8th edn). In: Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, et al., (eds.), New York: Springer International Publishing, 2017
- 30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Early and Locally Advances Breast Cancer: Diagnosis and Management (NG101). http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng101 (accessed 26 November 2020) [PubMed]
- 31. National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS). Survival by Stage. www.ncin.org.uk/publications/survival_by_stage (accessed 26 November 2020)
- 32. Simos D, Hutton B, Graham ID, Arnaout A, Caudrelier JM, Mazzarello S et al. Patient perceptions and expectations regarding imaging for metastatic disease in early stage breast cancer. Springerplus 2014;3:176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.