JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 29 No. 6 1045-1049
© 1988 by Society of Nuclear Medicine
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Coleman, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Fogelman, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Coleman, R. E.
Right arrow Articles by Fogelman, I.

Reappraisal of the Baseline Bone Scan in Breast Cancer

R. E. Coleman, R. D. Rubens and I. Fogelman

ICRF Clinical Oncology Unit and Department of Nuclear Medicine, Guy's Hospital, London, England

Correspondence: For reprints contact: R. E. Coleman, ICRF Clinical Oncology Unit, Guy's Hospital, London, England SE1 9RT.

ABSTRACT

Baseline staging bone scans in 1,267 consecutive women with breast cancer attending a single clinic between 1980 and 1986 were reviewed. 0.3% of patients with T1, 3% with T2, 8% with T3, 13% with T4 tumors and none of those with Stage 1, 3% with Stage 2, 7% with Stage 3, and 47% with Stage 4 disease had a positive scan due to bone metastases. Two hundred eighty-nine (23%) had bone scan abnormalities secondary to radiologically confirmed benign bone disease. In 20 patients, no cause for a bone scan abnormality could be found after a median follow-up of 3.50 yr, a false-positive frequency of 1.6%. The false-negative rate was 0.08%. It is concluded that patients with tumors <2 cm are most unlikely to have a positive scan. In this instance, scans are not required routinely. However, we recommend a baseline scan in all patients with Stage 2, 3, or 4 disease.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
H. T. Williams, S. Smith, and T. Uematsu
FDG PET and SPECT of Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2005; 185(6): 1651 - 1653.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNMHome page
E. Even-Sapir
Imaging of Malignant Bone Involvement by Morphologic, Scintigraphic, and Hybrid Modalities
J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2005; 46(8): 1356 - 1367.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
T. Uematsu, S. Yuen, S. Yukisawa, T. Aramaki, N. Morimoto, M. Endo, H. Furukawa, Y. Uchida, and J. Watanabe
Comparison of FDG PET and SPECT for Detection of Bone Metastases in Breast Cancer
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1266 - 1273.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
T. Hamaoka, J. E. Madewell, D. A. Podoloff, G. N. Hortobagyi, and N. T. Ueno
Bone Imaging in Metastatic Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., July 15, 2004; 22(14): 2942 - 2953.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Jpn J Clin OncolHome page
M. Koizumi, M. Yoshimoto, F. Kasumi, and E. Ogata
What Do Breast Cancer Patients Benefit from Staging Bone Scintigraphy?
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2001; 31(6): 263 - 269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
R. E. Myers, M. Johnston, K. Pritchard, M. Levine, and T. Oliver
Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline
Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 1, 2001; 164(10): 1439 - 1444.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 1988 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.