Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current Role of Bone Scan with Phosphonates in the Follow-Up of Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
Breast Cancer

  • 1823 Accesses

Abstract

Bone scintigraphy with radiolabelled phosphonates shows a high sensitivity in detecting breast cancer metastases. For this reason it has been considered the most useful tool for early diagnosing and monitoring the metastatic spread of breast cancer. In the past years, there has been wide debate on its impact on survival time, morbidity and quality of life. The results of some studies on the asymptomatic patients during follow-up have led to the adoption of an almost minimalist policy for breast cancer surveillance including only a few procedures (breast self-examination, history, physical examination, patient education on symptoms, and abdomen ultrasonography). The routine use of additional tests, such as tumour markers, chest X-rays, bone scintigraphy, and computed tomography (CT), has not been recommended, except in those cases with clinical suspicion or in patients at high risk of metastases. On the other hand, the early diagnosis of bone involvement may reduce the risk of skeletal-related events, thus leading to a significant improvement in quality of life and opening the options of the new therapy choices in order to plan more aggressive systemic treatments whose efficacy could have impact even on survival. Besides this, the recent development of nuclear medicine modalities, the evolution of PET and PET/CT systems has brought new elements of discussion in this area, since at present the depiction of skeletal metastases can be carried out with 99mTcphosphonates and also with 18F-PET, 18F-FDG-PET, and 18F-FDG-PET/CT. Therefore, the clinical problem today is not only when and whether bone scans should be used, but the question has also become which diagnostic modality can be used? In our opinion the choice of the modality has to consider different general and local factors such as the diagnostic accuracy, the availability, the economic costs, and so on. The most important issue is that every new diagnostic approach should be validated by large randomised prospective clinical trials with the goal to measure the effective impact on the course of the disease and on patient management. Nowadays, we do not have a sufficient amount of this kind of data, in spite of much clinical evidence that demonstrates the excellent sensitivity of bone scintigraphy in discovering skeletal metastases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Algra PR, Heimans JH, Valk J, Nauta JJ, Lachniet M, Van Kooten B (1992) Do metastases in vertebrae begin in the body or the pedicles? AJR 158:1275–1279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brar HS, Sisley JF, Johnson RH Jr (1993) Value of pre-operative bone and liver scans and alkaline phosphatase in the evaluation of breast cancer patients. Am J Surg 165:221–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bury T, Barreto A, Daenen F, Berthelemy N, Ghaya B, Rigo P (1998) Fluorine-18 deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for the detection of bone metastases in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med 25:1244–1247

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman RE, Rubens RD, Fogelman I (1988) Reappraisal of the baseline bone scan in breast cancer J Nucl Med 29:1045–1049

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cook GJ, Fogelman I (2001) The role of nuclear medicine in monitoring treatment in skeletal malignancy. Sem Nucl Med 31:206–211

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran RJ, Thrall JH, Kyle RW, Kaminski RJ, Johnson MC (1976) Solitary abnormalities in bone scans of patients with extraosseous malignancies. Radiology 121(3 pt1):663–667

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crippa F, Seregni E, Agresti R, Bombardieri E, Buraggi GL (1993) Bone scintigraphy in breast cancer: a 10-year follow-up study. J Nucl Biol Med 37:57–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Even-Sapir E (2005) Imaging of malignant bone involvement by morphologic, scintigraphic, and hybrid modalities. J Nucl Med 46:1356–1367

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham MC, Scher HI, Liu G-B et al (1999) Rhenium-186-labeled hydroxyethylidene diphosphonate dosimetry and dosing guidelines for the palliation of skeletal metastases from androgen-independent prostate cancer. Clin Can Res 5:1307–1318

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamaoka T, Madewell JE, Podoloff DA, Hortobagy GN, Ueno NT (2004) Bone imaging in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:2942–2953

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Export Panel (2000) American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines on the role of bisphosphonates in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:1378–1391

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Lipton A et al (1998) Longterm prevention of skeletal complications of metastatic breast cancer with pamidronate. Protocol 19 Aredia Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 16:2038–2044

    Google Scholar 

  • Hortobagyi GN, Theriault RL, Porter L et al (1996) Efficacy 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 335:1785–1791

    Google Scholar 

  • Hortobagyi GN (2002) Can we cure limited metastatic breast cancer? J Clin Oncol 20:620–623

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Israel O, Keidar Z, Rubinov R et al (2000) Quantitative bone single-photon emission computed tomography for prediction of pain relief in metastatic bone disease treated with Rhenium-186 etidronate. J Clin Oncol 18:2747–2754

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kamby K, Senegelov L (1997) 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 45:181–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kanis JA (1995) Bone and cancer. Pathophysiology and treatment of metastases. Bone 17:S101–S105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keidar Z, Israel O, Krausz Y (2003) SPECT/CT in tumor imaging: technical aspects and clinical application. Semin Nucl Med 33:205–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kendler D, Donnemiller E, Oberladstätter M, Erler H, Gabriel M, Riccabona G (2004) An individual dosimetric approach to 153Sm-EDTMP therapy for pain palliation in bone metastases in correlation with clinical results. Nucl Med Comm 25:367–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khansur T, Haick A, Patel B et al (1987) Evaluation of bone scan as a screening work-up in primary and local-regional recurrence of breast cancer patients. Am J Clin Oncol 10:167–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Koizumi M, Yoshimoto M, Kasumi F et al (2001) What do breast cancer patients benefit from staging bone scintigraphy? J Clin Oncol 31:263–269

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Komaki R, Donegan W, Manoli R et al (1979) Prognostic value of pre-treatment bone scan in breast carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 132:877–881

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kunkler IH, Merrick MV, Rodger A (1985) Bone scintigraphy in breast cancer: A 9-year follow-up. Clin Radiol 36:279–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maffioli LS, Butti I, Florimonte L, Pagani L (2005) 99mTc-MDP double bone scan to predict the bone morrow dose from 153Sm-EDTMP. JNM 46(Suppl 1):P1122

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin TJ, Moseley JM (2000) Mechanisms in the skeletal complications of breast cancer. Endocrin Relat Cancer 7:271–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mille D, Roy T, Carrère M-O, Ray I, Ferdjaoui N, Späth H-M, Chauvin F, Philip T (2000) 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 18:1718–1724

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mundy G (1995) Metastatic bone disease. In: Fogelman I, Editor. Bone remodelling and its disorders. London: Martin Dunitz, p 104–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakai T, Okujama C, Kubota T, Yamada K, Ushijima Y, Taniike K, Suzuky T, Nishimura T (2005) Pitfalls of FDGPET for the diagnosis of osteoblastic bone metastases in patients with breast cancer Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:1253–1258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rajic MP, Bogicevic M, Ilic S, Vlajcovic M, Lilic G, Sekulic V, Lilic B (2005) Comparison of skeletal scintigraphy findings with levels of serum markers Ca15.3 with alkaline phosphatase (ALP) in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imag 32(Suppl 1):P43

    Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Samant R, Ganguly P (1999) Staging investigations in patients with breast cancer: the role of bone scan and liver imaging. Arch Surg 134:551–553

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Talbäck M, Stenbeck M, Rosén M, Barlow L, Glimelius B (2003) Cancer survival in Sweden 1960–1998. Acta Oncologica 42(7):637–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomin R, Donegan WL (1987) Screening for recurrent breast cancer: its effectiveness and prognostic value J Clin Oncol 5:62–67

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer MD (1991) Against minimalism in breast cancer follow-up. JAMA 265:396–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wickerham L, Fisher B, Cronin W (1984) The efficacy of bone scanning in the follow-up of patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 4:303–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Williams A (1994) How should information on cost effectiveness influence clinical practice? In: Delamothe T (ed) Outcomes into clinical practice. London: BMJ Publishing Group p 99–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh KA, Fortunato L, Ridge JA et al (1995) Routine bone scanning in patients with T1 and T2 breast cancer. A waste of money. Ann Surg Oncol 2:319–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ospedale Civile di Legnano, Legnano, Italy

    Lorenzo Maffioli

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine Fondazione IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Mangiagalli Regina Elena, Milan, Italy

    Luigia Florimonte

  3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Ospedale A. Manzoni, Lecco, Italy

    Luca Pagani

  4. Division of Health Physics, Ospedale A. Manzoni, Lecco, Italy

    Ivana Butti

  5. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Universitari Vall Hebron, Barcelona, Spain

    Isabel Roca

Authors
  1. Lorenzo Maffioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigia Florimonte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luca Pagani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ivana Butti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Isabel Roca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Nuclear Medicine Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Radiotherapy Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Emilio Bombardieri MD

  2. Division of Medical Oncology Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Luca Gianni MD

  3. Perspective Clinical Trials Fondazione IRCCS, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Gianni Bonadonna MD (Chair) (Chair)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maffioli, L., Florimonte, L., Pagani, L., Butti, I., Roca, I. (2008). Current Role of Bone Scan with Phosphonates in the Follow-Up of Breast Cancer. In: Bombardieri, E., Gianni, L., Bonadonna, G. (eds) Breast Cancer. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36781-9_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36781-9_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36780-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36781-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation