10. Staging
For breast cancer patients without symptoms suggestive of metastases at clinical stage 2, the ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests:
- not using conventional staging exams (conditional recommendation, low certainty of the evidence)
- not using positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of the evidence)
Stage 2: conventional exams
Issued on: September 2018
Healthcare question
Should conventional staging exams vs. no staging exams be used for patients with clinical stage II breast cancer without symptoms suggestive of metastases?
Recommendation
The ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests not using conventional staging exams with imaging in women with clinical stage IIa or IIb breast cancer.
Recommendation strength
| Conditional recommendation |
| Low certainty of the evidence |
Subgroup considerations
- For clinical stage II breast cancers, the GDG notes that there is no evidence of an increased detection rate according to hormone receptor and HER2 status, although these results might influence the decision to conduct further imaging because of the possible impact on treatment strategies.
- The GDG also notes that age and presence of comorbidities of the patient may be a consideration in the decision of whether to conduct staging exams with imaging as this may change the choice of treatment.
- Subgroups based on histological and marker results may impact the need to conduct staging examinations using imaging.
Considerations for implementation and policy making
- The GDG notes that a positive on imaging staging exams may be managed differently in different settings and in different body sites; if the presence of a distant metastasis on staging exams results in initiation of treatment, the impact of false positives may be greater.
- The GDG considered the definition of ‘clinical stage’ as pre-pathological clinical stage, in accordance with the definition listed in the ECIBC glossary.
- The GDG notes that there is still uncertainty with the evidence of detection rate using staging exams with imaging.
- Consultation with colleagues during the interdisciplinary cancer treatment team meetings may be helpful in limiting the need for staging exams.
- Education of healthcare providers to limit the use of staging exams using imaging for clinical stage IIa/IIb breast cancer.
Monitoring and evaluation
The GDG suggests monitoring for compliance that routine staging exams using imaging are not conducted due to the undesirable effects, including increased false positives with small desirable effects.
Research priorities
- The GDG notes that no research evidence was identified on how people value the main outcomes. The GDG suggests additional research on how people value the main outcomes of staging exams for detection of metastases.
- The GDG suggests further research on marker results and the implications for using staging exams using imaging.
- Further research on the psychological effects and values and preferences for women related to the consequences of staging and non-staging approaches.
Supporting material
- Organised vs. non-organised screening
- Double vs. single reading in mammograpy screening
- Communication skills training
- Communication with care providers
- Optimal number of mammography readings
- Specialised training
- Risk stratification
- Women aged 40-44: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 45-49: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 45-49: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 45-49: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 45-49: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 50-69: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 70-74: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Single reading with AI support
- Double reading with AI support
- Screening with tomosynthesis vs. mammography
- Screening with tomosynthesis plus mammography vs. mammography alone
- Tailored screening with tomosynthesis
- Screening with tomosynthesis vs. mammography
- Tailored screening with MRI
- Tailored screening with ABUS
- Tailored screening with HHUS
- Informing about benefits and harms: use of decision aids
- Informing about benefits and harms: Numbers in addition to plain language
- Informing about benefits and harms: Infographics in addition to plain language
- Informing about benefits and harms: Story telling in addition to plain language
- Inviting women to screening: letter vs. no invitation
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Targeted vs. general communication strategy
- Inviting women with an intellectual disability to screening
- Inviting non-native speakers to screening
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Tailored vs. targeted communication strategy
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Tailored vs. general communication strategy
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter vs. no invitation
- Inviting women to screening: letter with fixed appointment vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter with fixed appointment vs. lett
- Inviting women to screening: letter with GP signature vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter with GP signature vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by phone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by phone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by phone call vs. no invitation
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by written reminder vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by written reminder vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by face to face intervention vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by face to face intervention vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: e-mail vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: automated telephone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by automated telephone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by SMS notification vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by personalised phone call vs. automated phone call
- Negative result: letter vs. nothing
- Further assessment: letter followed by a phone call
- Further assessment: timing of results
- Negative result: phone call vs. letter
- Negative result: face to face interview vs. letter
- Negative result: timing of results
- Tomosynthesis vs. assessment mammography
- Obtaining a sample from a suspicious breast lesion
- Type of guidance for needle core biopsy
- Stage 1: conventional exams
- Stage 1: PET-CT exams
- Stage 2: conventional exams
- Stage 2: PET-CT exams
- Stage 3: conventional exams
- Stage 3: PET-CT exams
- Stage 3: conventional exams plus PET-CT
- Use of clip-marking
- Additional magnetic resonance imaging
- Contrast-enhanced mammography
- Threshold of oestrogen for endocrine therapy
- Threshold of progesterone for endocrine therapy
- Multigene testing: 70 gene signature at low clinical risk
- Multigene testing: 70 gene signature at high clinical risk
- Multigene testing: 21 gene recurrence score
- Organising screening programmes
- Risk stratification
- Women 40-44
- Women 45-49
- Women 50-69
- Women 70-74
- Women with high breast density
- General Population
- Vulnerable Population
- Informing women about their results
- Women recalled due to suspicious lesions
- Obtaining a sample from a suspicious lesion
- Type of guidance for needle core biopsy
- Stage 1
- Stage 2
- Stage 3
- Planning surgical treatment
- Hormone receptor to guide use of endocrine therapy
- Multigene testing to guide use of chemotherapy