Home > Journals > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging > Past Issues > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 1998 March;42(1) > The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 1998 March;42(1):66-80

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLES  BREAST CANCER II 

The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine 1998 March;42(1):66-80

Copyright © 2000 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Impact of the diagnostic methods on the therapeutic strategies

Greco M., Agresti R., Giovanazzi R.

From the Division of General Surgery “B” Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Milan, Italy


PDF


Over the ­last 25 ­years the diag­nos­tic approach­es and ther­a­peu­tic strat­e­gies of ­breast can­cer ­have dra­mat­i­cal­ly ­changed. The rela­tion­ship ­between diag­no­sis and ther­a­py has grad­u­al­ly ­become ­more com­plex due to the ­ever ­more sophis­ti­cat­ed diag­nos­tic ­tools (mam­mo­graph­ic screen­ing, dig­i­tal mam­mog­ra­phy, magnetic resonan-ce, ­SPECT ­scan and FDG-PET), ­which ­have ­improved res­o­lu­tion lim­its and accu­ra­cy, and ­also due to the dif­fer­ent ther­a­peu­tic plan­ning ­applied to ­breast can­cer in ­these ­years (con­ser­va­tive sur­gery, neo-adju­vant chem­o­ther­a­py, axil­lary dis­sec­tion or not). Thus, in ­this ­paper, we ­have brief­ly ana­lyzed the ­many ­open ques­tions in ­breast can­cer man­age­ment and the clin­i­cal chal­leng­es of ­present diag­nos­tic ­tools in rela­tion to pre-, ­peri- and post­op­er­a­tive phas­es, and to ther­a­peu­tic strat­e­gies in gen­er­al. The ­main ­goal of mam­mo­graph­ic screen­ing is to ­detect ear­ly inva­sive can­cers and to ­treat ­them at the ­first use­ful ­moment. However, at ­which age ­should one ­begin screen­ing, and ­what is the ­impact on over­all sur­vi­val, the ­cost-effec­tive­ness, and, ­most of all, the ­best oper­a­tive ­approach to sus­pect ­lesions? Can dig­i­tal mam­mog­ra­phy ­give a bet­ter qual­ity of imag­ing ­with ­respect to con­ven­tion­al mam­mog­ra­phy? Does unex­pect­ed mul­ti­cen­tric­ity and/or mul­ti­fo­cal­ity, ­which is some­times ­showed by mag­net­ic res­o­nance, ­have any clin­i­cal rel­e­vance? Is ­this tech­nique real­ly bet­ter ­than tra­di­tion­al meth­ods for the iden­tifi­ca­tion of ­local recur­rence? Is scin­ti­mam­mog­ra­phy ­able to ­improve the low diag­nos­tic accu­ra­cy of mam­mog­ra­phy on non-pal­pa­ble ­breast ­lesions? Moreover, at ­present, the ­need for axil­lary dis­sec­tion and its ther­a­peu­tic and stag­ing val­ue is deep­ly debat­ed: how­ev­er, clin­i­cal detec­tion of axil­lary metas­ta­ses is not a reli­able diag­nos­tic ­tool and ­there are no con­ven­tion­al radio­log­ic tech­niques to be ­used: recent­ly nucle­ar med­i­cine imag­ing has pro­vid­ed var­i­ous approach­es, ­such as ­SPECT ­scan ­with dif­fer­ent trac­ers, FDG-PET, or lym­phos­cin­tig­ra­phy ­with gam­ma ­probe sen­ti­nel biop­sy: ­there are not ­only method­o­log­ic but ­also phy­lo­soph­ic dif­fe­ren­cies in ­using ­these tech­niques. Neo-adju­vant chem­o­ther­a­py has ­allowed a dra­mat­ic reduc­tion of pri­mary ­breast can­cer ­with a replan­ning of the sur­gi­cal ­approach to ­large ­breast ­tumours but, at the ­same ­time, has ­posed new ques­tions ­such as the ade­qua­cy of diag­nos­tic pre- and per­i­op­er­a­tive reval­u­a­tion. Finally, ­does post­op­er­a­tive fol­low-up ­take advan­tage of inten­sive diag­nos­tic pro­grams and are ­there ther­a­peu­tic mar­gins ­which ­would ­improve sur­vi­val of ­patients ­with met­a­stat­ic dis­ease? This ­paper is an ­attempt to ana­lyze the ­answers giv­en in the literature. Nevertheless, at ­present, ­this mat­ter is glo­bal­ly in ­progress and a sci­en­tif­ic ­debate ­will pro­vide, in the ­near ­future, a new prom­is­ing sce­nar­io for ­breast can­cer man­age­ment.

top of page