Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Koizumi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ogata, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Koizumi, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ogata, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Oncology 14:1234-1240, 2003
© 2003 European Society for Medical Oncology

Original Paper

Comparison between solitary and multiple skeletal metastatic lesions of breast cancer patients

M. Koizumi1,+, M. Yoshimoto2, F. Kasumi2 and E. Ogata3

Departments of 1 Nuclear Medicine, 2 Breast Surgery and 3 Internal Medicine, Cancer Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

Received 4 November 2002; revised 22 April 2003; accepted 22 April 2003

Background:

Breast cancer has been the subject of many recent studies because it is a significant cause of death in women. This study was performed to clarify whether solitary skeletal metastasis has clinical significance compared with multiple skeletal metastasis.

Patients and methods:

Seven hundred and three patients who developed metastatic bone lesions up to September 2002 after beginning treatment for breast cancer from 1988 to 1998 were included. The lesions were classified first as solitary or multiple based on bone scan results and then according to anatomical distribution. Next, solitary-to-multiple conversion was investigated in patients with solitary skeletal metastasis. Then factors related to solitary or multiple skeletal metastasis were analyzed. The prognosis of skeletal metastasis was compared between patients with solitary or multiple metastatic bone lesions. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to test whether solitary skeletal metastasis compared with multiple skeletal metastasis was an independent factor of survival.

Results:

Two hundred and eighty-nine patients (41%) had solitary skeletal metastasis and 414 patients (59%) showed multiple skeletal metastasis. The sternum was a frequent site for solitary skeletal metastasis (98 of 289, 34%), while other skeletal sites were more frequent in patients with multiple metastatic bone lesions (P <0.001). Solitary sternal metastatic lesions remained solitary longer than solitary metastatic bone lesions to places other than the sternum (P <0.001), but did not lengthen patient survival times (P = 0.871). The factors related to solitary skeletal metastasis are TNM stage (tumor–node–metastasis) and histology. The patients with earlier stage and favorable histology tend to have solitary skeletal metastasis. The patients with solitary skeletal metastasis lived longer than those with multiple metastatic bone lesions (P <0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a solitary metastatic bone lesion (P = 0.002) is an independent favorable prognostic factor in patients with skeletal metastasis.

Conclusions:

Solitary skeletal metastasis has a different anatomical distribution and is an independent prognostic factor in patients with skeletal metastasis.

Key words: breast cancer, skeletal metastasis, solitary and multiple, sternum


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
K. J. Sweeney, P. J. Boland, and T. King
The Management of Asymptomatic Skeletal Breast Cancer: A Paradigm Shift
Ann. Surg. Oncol., September 1, 2007; 14(9): 2430 - 2431.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.