Use and Yield of Baseline Imaging and Laboratory Testing in Stage II Breast Cancer

Background. Despite guideline recommendations, baseline laboratory testing and advanced imaging are widely ordered in clinical practice to stage asymptomatic patients with clinical stage II breast cancer (BC). Materials and Methods. A retrospective study at two academic centers in Boston, Massachuse...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio) Ohio), 2016-12, Vol.21 (12), p.1495-1501
Hauptverfasser: Bychkovsky, Brittany L., Guo, Hao, Sutton, Jazmine, Spring, Laura, Faig, Jennifer, Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi, Battelli, Chiara, Houlihan, Mary Jane, Yeh, Tsai‐Chu, Come, Steven E., Lin, Nancy U.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1501
container_issue 12
container_start_page 1495
container_title The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio)
container_volume 21
creator Bychkovsky, Brittany L.
Guo, Hao
Sutton, Jazmine
Spring, Laura
Faig, Jennifer
Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi
Battelli, Chiara
Houlihan, Mary Jane
Yeh, Tsai‐Chu
Come, Steven E.
Lin, Nancy U.
description Background. Despite guideline recommendations, baseline laboratory testing and advanced imaging are widely ordered in clinical practice to stage asymptomatic patients with clinical stage II breast cancer (BC). Materials and Methods. A retrospective study at two academic centers in Boston, Massachusetts, between 2006 and 2007 explored the use, results, and implications of laboratory tests, tumor markers, and imaging in patients with clinical stage II BC. Results. Among 411 patients, 233 (57%) had liver function testing, 134 (33%) had tumor marker tests, and 237 (58%) had computed tomography (CT) as part of their initial diagnostic workup. Median age was 52 (range, 23–90 years). On multivariable analysis, young age, more advanced stage, and tumor subtype (human epidermal growth receptor‐positive [HER2+] and triple‐negative breast cancer [TNBC]) were significantly associated with baseline CT. The rate of detection of true metastatic disease with use of baseline staging imaging was 2.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.7%–5%). It was 2.2% (3 of 135) for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor‐positive disease, 1.9% (1 of 54) for HER2+ disease, and 2.1% (1 of 48) for TNBC. At 5 years of follow‐up, 46 of 406 patients were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Thirty‐four of 46 (73.9%) who developed recurrent disease had imaging at their initial diagnosis, and of these, five had abnormalities on their initial imaging that was correlated with where they developed metastatic disease. Conclusion. In this cohort of women with stage II BC, staging imaging at diagnosis had a low yield in detecting distant metastases (2.1%). The detection rate was not higher with HER2+ disease or TNBC, despite the trend that patients with these subtypes were more likely to undergo imaging. Implications for Practice: Despite guideline recommendations, asymptomatic patients with stage II breast cancer (BC) often undergo staging imaging with computed tomography, bone scanning, or positron emission tomography. Physicians have often reported that they order imaging despite recommendations because they believe that younger patients or patients with more aggressive BC phenotypes, such as human epidermal receptor 2‐positive BC or triple‐negative BC, benefit from staging imaging. In this cohort of women younger than those in prior studies, the yield of detecting distant metastatic disease in patients with clinical stage II BC was very low and the detection rate was not higher in the presence of HE
doi_str_mv 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0157
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5153340</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1852656502</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4715-69a886a1ce145e622e9a0b1b5c18373588f5f780cdaebdf3ec5f44ff00c7f5c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1PGzEQhi1UVD7av0B97GWpvbb340ClEgGNFDVSC1J7sma948XVxqb2pij_HqcBBLeebHmeeWesh5APnJ3ySshP0y0Gb8IYBpem05LxqmBc1XvkkCvZFrJlP9_kO2tEUXPVHpCjlH6zjLSifEsOylopzrg4JN9vElLwPf3lcOxpsPQcEo7OI52vYHB--FddQBciTCFu6DWmafvsPP0xwZC5OT2PCGmiM_AG4zuyb2FM-P7xPCY3lxfXs6_FYnk1n31ZFEbmnYqqhaapgBvkUmFVltgC63inDG9ELVTTWGXrhpkesOutQKOslNYyZmqbIXFMPu9y79bdCnuDfoow6rvoVhA3OoDTryve3eoh_NWKKyEkywEfHwNi-LPO39IrlwyOI3gM66R5o8pKVYqVGa13qIkhpYj2eQxnemtEvzKit0b01kjuPHm55XPfk4IMnO2Aezfi5n9z9fLbbMllq8QDcO6glA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1852656502</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Use and Yield of Baseline Imaging and Laboratory Testing in Stage II Breast Cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Bychkovsky, Brittany L. ; Guo, Hao ; Sutton, Jazmine ; Spring, Laura ; Faig, Jennifer ; Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi ; Battelli, Chiara ; Houlihan, Mary Jane ; Yeh, Tsai‐Chu ; Come, Steven E. ; Lin, Nancy U.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bychkovsky, Brittany L. ; Guo, Hao ; Sutton, Jazmine ; Spring, Laura ; Faig, Jennifer ; Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi ; Battelli, Chiara ; Houlihan, Mary Jane ; Yeh, Tsai‐Chu ; Come, Steven E. ; Lin, Nancy U.</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Despite guideline recommendations, baseline laboratory testing and advanced imaging are widely ordered in clinical practice to stage asymptomatic patients with clinical stage II breast cancer (BC). Materials and Methods. A retrospective study at two academic centers in Boston, Massachusetts, between 2006 and 2007 explored the use, results, and implications of laboratory tests, tumor markers, and imaging in patients with clinical stage II BC. Results. Among 411 patients, 233 (57%) had liver function testing, 134 (33%) had tumor marker tests, and 237 (58%) had computed tomography (CT) as part of their initial diagnostic workup. Median age was 52 (range, 23–90 years). On multivariable analysis, young age, more advanced stage, and tumor subtype (human epidermal growth receptor‐positive [HER2+] and triple‐negative breast cancer [TNBC]) were significantly associated with baseline CT. The rate of detection of true metastatic disease with use of baseline staging imaging was 2.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.7%–5%). It was 2.2% (3 of 135) for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor‐positive disease, 1.9% (1 of 54) for HER2+ disease, and 2.1% (1 of 48) for TNBC. At 5 years of follow‐up, 46 of 406 patients were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Thirty‐four of 46 (73.9%) who developed recurrent disease had imaging at their initial diagnosis, and of these, five had abnormalities on their initial imaging that was correlated with where they developed metastatic disease. Conclusion. In this cohort of women with stage II BC, staging imaging at diagnosis had a low yield in detecting distant metastases (2.1%). The detection rate was not higher with HER2+ disease or TNBC, despite the trend that patients with these subtypes were more likely to undergo imaging. Implications for Practice: Despite guideline recommendations, asymptomatic patients with stage II breast cancer (BC) often undergo staging imaging with computed tomography, bone scanning, or positron emission tomography. Physicians have often reported that they order imaging despite recommendations because they believe that younger patients or patients with more aggressive BC phenotypes, such as human epidermal receptor 2‐positive BC or triple‐negative BC, benefit from staging imaging. In this cohort of women younger than those in prior studies, the yield of detecting distant metastatic disease in patients with clinical stage II BC was very low and the detection rate was not higher in the presence of HER2‐positive or triple‐negative BC. This study suggests that liver function tests, tumor markers, and routine body imaging are unnecessary for the initial evaluation of asymptomatic women with stage II breast cancer, even for subgroups of young women and patients with human epidermal receptor 2‐positive breast cancer, triple‐negative breast cancer, or stage IIB disease.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1083-7159</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1549-490X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0157</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27551013</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Durham, NC, USA: AlphaMed Press</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Breast Cancer ; Breast Neoplasms - chemistry ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging utilization ; Logistic Models ; Metastases ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Metastasis ; Neoplasm Staging ; Positron-Emission Tomography ; Radiologic studies ; Receptor, ErbB-2 - analysis ; Receptors, Estrogen - analysis ; Retrospective Studies ; Staging ; Tumor markers</subject><ispartof>The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio), 2016-12, Vol.21 (12), p.1495-1501</ispartof><rights>2016 AlphaMed Press</rights><rights>AlphaMed Press.</rights><rights>AlphaMed Press 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4715-69a886a1ce145e622e9a0b1b5c18373588f5f780cdaebdf3ec5f44ff00c7f5c13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4715-69a886a1ce145e622e9a0b1b5c18373588f5f780cdaebdf3ec5f44ff00c7f5c13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153340/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5153340/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,882,1412,27905,27906,45555,45556,53772,53774</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27551013$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bychkovsky, Brittany L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Jazmine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spring, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faig, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Battelli, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Houlihan, Mary Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeh, Tsai‐Chu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Come, Steven E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Nancy U.</creatorcontrib><title>Use and Yield of Baseline Imaging and Laboratory Testing in Stage II Breast Cancer</title><title>The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio)</title><addtitle>Oncologist</addtitle><description>Background. Despite guideline recommendations, baseline laboratory testing and advanced imaging are widely ordered in clinical practice to stage asymptomatic patients with clinical stage II breast cancer (BC). Materials and Methods. A retrospective study at two academic centers in Boston, Massachusetts, between 2006 and 2007 explored the use, results, and implications of laboratory tests, tumor markers, and imaging in patients with clinical stage II BC. Results. Among 411 patients, 233 (57%) had liver function testing, 134 (33%) had tumor marker tests, and 237 (58%) had computed tomography (CT) as part of their initial diagnostic workup. Median age was 52 (range, 23–90 years). On multivariable analysis, young age, more advanced stage, and tumor subtype (human epidermal growth receptor‐positive [HER2+] and triple‐negative breast cancer [TNBC]) were significantly associated with baseline CT. The rate of detection of true metastatic disease with use of baseline staging imaging was 2.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.7%–5%). It was 2.2% (3 of 135) for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor‐positive disease, 1.9% (1 of 54) for HER2+ disease, and 2.1% (1 of 48) for TNBC. At 5 years of follow‐up, 46 of 406 patients were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Thirty‐four of 46 (73.9%) who developed recurrent disease had imaging at their initial diagnosis, and of these, five had abnormalities on their initial imaging that was correlated with where they developed metastatic disease. Conclusion. In this cohort of women with stage II BC, staging imaging at diagnosis had a low yield in detecting distant metastases (2.1%). The detection rate was not higher with HER2+ disease or TNBC, despite the trend that patients with these subtypes were more likely to undergo imaging. Implications for Practice: Despite guideline recommendations, asymptomatic patients with stage II breast cancer (BC) often undergo staging imaging with computed tomography, bone scanning, or positron emission tomography. Physicians have often reported that they order imaging despite recommendations because they believe that younger patients or patients with more aggressive BC phenotypes, such as human epidermal receptor 2‐positive BC or triple‐negative BC, benefit from staging imaging. In this cohort of women younger than those in prior studies, the yield of detecting distant metastatic disease in patients with clinical stage II BC was very low and the detection rate was not higher in the presence of HER2‐positive or triple‐negative BC. This study suggests that liver function tests, tumor markers, and routine body imaging are unnecessary for the initial evaluation of asymptomatic women with stage II breast cancer, even for subgroups of young women and patients with human epidermal receptor 2‐positive breast cancer, triple‐negative breast cancer, or stage IIB disease.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Breast Cancer</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - chemistry</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging utilization</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Metastasis</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Positron-Emission Tomography</subject><subject>Radiologic studies</subject><subject>Receptor, ErbB-2 - analysis</subject><subject>Receptors, Estrogen - analysis</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Staging</subject><subject>Tumor markers</subject><issn>1083-7159</issn><issn>1549-490X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1PGzEQhi1UVD7av0B97GWpvbb340ClEgGNFDVSC1J7sma948XVxqb2pij_HqcBBLeebHmeeWesh5APnJ3ySshP0y0Gb8IYBpem05LxqmBc1XvkkCvZFrJlP9_kO2tEUXPVHpCjlH6zjLSifEsOylopzrg4JN9vElLwPf3lcOxpsPQcEo7OI52vYHB--FddQBciTCFu6DWmafvsPP0xwZC5OT2PCGmiM_AG4zuyb2FM-P7xPCY3lxfXs6_FYnk1n31ZFEbmnYqqhaapgBvkUmFVltgC63inDG9ELVTTWGXrhpkesOutQKOslNYyZmqbIXFMPu9y79bdCnuDfoow6rvoVhA3OoDTryve3eoh_NWKKyEkywEfHwNi-LPO39IrlwyOI3gM66R5o8pKVYqVGa13qIkhpYj2eQxnemtEvzKit0b01kjuPHm55XPfk4IMnO2Aezfi5n9z9fLbbMllq8QDcO6glA</recordid><startdate>201612</startdate><enddate>201612</enddate><creator>Bychkovsky, Brittany L.</creator><creator>Guo, Hao</creator><creator>Sutton, Jazmine</creator><creator>Spring, Laura</creator><creator>Faig, Jennifer</creator><creator>Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi</creator><creator>Battelli, Chiara</creator><creator>Houlihan, Mary Jane</creator><creator>Yeh, Tsai‐Chu</creator><creator>Come, Steven E.</creator><creator>Lin, Nancy U.</creator><general>AlphaMed Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201612</creationdate><title>Use and Yield of Baseline Imaging and Laboratory Testing in Stage II Breast Cancer</title><author>Bychkovsky, Brittany L. ; Guo, Hao ; Sutton, Jazmine ; Spring, Laura ; Faig, Jennifer ; Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi ; Battelli, Chiara ; Houlihan, Mary Jane ; Yeh, Tsai‐Chu ; Come, Steven E. ; Lin, Nancy U.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4715-69a886a1ce145e622e9a0b1b5c18373588f5f780cdaebdf3ec5f44ff00c7f5c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Breast Cancer</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - chemistry</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging utilization</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Metastasis</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Positron-Emission Tomography</topic><topic>Radiologic studies</topic><topic>Receptor, ErbB-2 - analysis</topic><topic>Receptors, Estrogen - analysis</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Staging</topic><topic>Tumor markers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bychkovsky, Brittany L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guo, Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sutton, Jazmine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spring, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faig, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Battelli, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Houlihan, Mary Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yeh, Tsai‐Chu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Come, Steven E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Nancy U.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bychkovsky, Brittany L.</au><au>Guo, Hao</au><au>Sutton, Jazmine</au><au>Spring, Laura</au><au>Faig, Jennifer</au><au>Dagogo‐Jack, Ibiayi</au><au>Battelli, Chiara</au><au>Houlihan, Mary Jane</au><au>Yeh, Tsai‐Chu</au><au>Come, Steven E.</au><au>Lin, Nancy U.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Use and Yield of Baseline Imaging and Laboratory Testing in Stage II Breast Cancer</atitle><jtitle>The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio)</jtitle><addtitle>Oncologist</addtitle><date>2016-12</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>1495</spage><epage>1501</epage><pages>1495-1501</pages><issn>1083-7159</issn><eissn>1549-490X</eissn><abstract>Background. Despite guideline recommendations, baseline laboratory testing and advanced imaging are widely ordered in clinical practice to stage asymptomatic patients with clinical stage II breast cancer (BC). Materials and Methods. A retrospective study at two academic centers in Boston, Massachusetts, between 2006 and 2007 explored the use, results, and implications of laboratory tests, tumor markers, and imaging in patients with clinical stage II BC. Results. Among 411 patients, 233 (57%) had liver function testing, 134 (33%) had tumor marker tests, and 237 (58%) had computed tomography (CT) as part of their initial diagnostic workup. Median age was 52 (range, 23–90 years). On multivariable analysis, young age, more advanced stage, and tumor subtype (human epidermal growth receptor‐positive [HER2+] and triple‐negative breast cancer [TNBC]) were significantly associated with baseline CT. The rate of detection of true metastatic disease with use of baseline staging imaging was 2.1% (95% confidence interval, 0.7%–5%). It was 2.2% (3 of 135) for estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor‐positive disease, 1.9% (1 of 54) for HER2+ disease, and 2.1% (1 of 48) for TNBC. At 5 years of follow‐up, 46 of 406 patients were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Thirty‐four of 46 (73.9%) who developed recurrent disease had imaging at their initial diagnosis, and of these, five had abnormalities on their initial imaging that was correlated with where they developed metastatic disease. Conclusion. In this cohort of women with stage II BC, staging imaging at diagnosis had a low yield in detecting distant metastases (2.1%). The detection rate was not higher with HER2+ disease or TNBC, despite the trend that patients with these subtypes were more likely to undergo imaging. Implications for Practice: Despite guideline recommendations, asymptomatic patients with stage II breast cancer (BC) often undergo staging imaging with computed tomography, bone scanning, or positron emission tomography. Physicians have often reported that they order imaging despite recommendations because they believe that younger patients or patients with more aggressive BC phenotypes, such as human epidermal receptor 2‐positive BC or triple‐negative BC, benefit from staging imaging. In this cohort of women younger than those in prior studies, the yield of detecting distant metastatic disease in patients with clinical stage II BC was very low and the detection rate was not higher in the presence of HER2‐positive or triple‐negative BC. This study suggests that liver function tests, tumor markers, and routine body imaging are unnecessary for the initial evaluation of asymptomatic women with stage II breast cancer, even for subgroups of young women and patients with human epidermal receptor 2‐positive breast cancer, triple‐negative breast cancer, or stage IIB disease.</abstract><cop>Durham, NC, USA</cop><pub>AlphaMed Press</pub><pmid>27551013</pmid><doi>10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0157</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1083-7159
ispartof The oncologist (Dayton, Ohio), 2016-12, Vol.21 (12), p.1495-1501
issn 1083-7159
1549-490X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5153340
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; PubMed Central
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breast Cancer
Breast Neoplasms - chemistry
Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
Female
Humans
Imaging utilization
Logistic Models
Metastases
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Metastasis
Neoplasm Staging
Positron-Emission Tomography
Radiologic studies
Receptor, ErbB-2 - analysis
Receptors, Estrogen - analysis
Retrospective Studies
Staging
Tumor markers
title Use and Yield of Baseline Imaging and Laboratory Testing in Stage II Breast Cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-18T09%3A56%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use%20and%20Yield%20of%20Baseline%20Imaging%20and%20Laboratory%20Testing%20in%20Stage%20II%20Breast%20Cancer&rft.jtitle=The%20oncologist%20(Dayton,%20Ohio)&rft.au=Bychkovsky,%20Brittany%20L.&rft.date=2016-12&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=1495&rft.epage=1501&rft.pages=1495-1501&rft.issn=1083-7159&rft.eissn=1549-490X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0157&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1852656502%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1852656502&rft_id=info:pmid/27551013&rfr_iscdi=true