Available online on 30.08.2026 at ijmspr.com

 International Journal of Medical Sciences and Pharma Research 

Open Access to Medical Science and Pharma Research

Copyright  © 2026 The   Author(s): This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial use provided the original author and source are credited

 

Bone Marrow Infiltration in Breast Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Perspectives- A Narrative Review

^*Emmanuel Ifeanyi Obeagu ¹, Bibek Giri ²

¹ Department of Biomedical and Laboratory Science, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe

² Research Institute for Collaborative Development, Kathmandu, Nepal.

 

 

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among women globally and remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality¹. Despite advances in early detection and systemic therapies, metastatic disease continues to be the principal challenge in breast cancer management². Metastasis to distant organs such as bone, liver, lungs, and brain dramatically worsens prognosis and limits curative treatment options. Among these, bone metastases are the most common site of distant spread, reflecting the strong affinity of breast cancer cells for the bone microenvironment³.

Bone marrow infiltration (BMI) represents a pivotal early event in the metastatic cascade, wherein disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) colonize the bone marrow prior to overt skeletal metastasis. This stage of micro metastatic disease is often clinically silent and difficult to detect with conventional imaging, yet it holds significant prognostic relevance⁴. The presence of tumor cells in the bone marrow is considered a surrogate marker for minimal residual disease and can precede clinical relapse by months or years⁵. The bone marrow provides a unique niche that supports tumor cell survival, dormancy, and eventual outgrowth. Interactions between breast cancer cells and the complex marrow microenvironment — comprising hematopoietic cells, stromal components, and extracellular matrix-facilitate immune evasion and resistance to therapy^{6, 7}. Understanding these biological mechanisms is critical for developing strategies aimed at preventing metastatic progression and improving patient outcomes.

From a diagnostic standpoint, detection of BMI is challenging due to the low frequency and scattered distribution of tumor cells within the marrow⁸. Traditional bone marrow biopsy and aspiration remain the gold standard for diagnosis but are limited by sampling errors and invasiveness⁹. Advances in immunocytochemistry, molecular assays such as reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and emerging liquid biopsy techniques have enhanced the sensitivity and specificity of detecting marrow micro metastases^{10, 11}. Prognostically, numerous studies have demonstrated that breast cancer patients with bone marrow micro metastases exhibit higher rates of disease recurrence and decreased overall survival compared to those without detectable infiltration^12-14. The assessment of BMI therefore has potential utility in risk stratification and may guide therapeutic decision-making, particularly in the adjuvant setting^{12, 13}. However, routine clinical implementation is still limited due to variability in detection methods and unclear standardization.

Furthermore, the therapeutic implications of BMI detection are evolving. Targeting the bone marrow niche and interrupting the supportive interactions between tumor cells and the microenvironment represent promising areas of research. Such approaches could potentially prevent the transition from dormancy to overt metastasis, thereby improving long-term outcomes.

This review aims to synthesize current knowledge regarding the pathophysiology, diagnostic techniques, and prognostic significance of bone marrow infiltration in breast cancer. 

Aim

This narrative review aims to comprehensively examine the current understanding of bone marrow infiltration in breast cancer, highlighting its pathophysiological mechanisms, diagnostic approaches, and prognostic significance.

Bone marrow infiltration (BMI) by breast cancer cells is a complex, multistep process that underpins the metastatic spread of tumor cells to the skeletal system. The initial step involves dissemination of cancer cells from the primary breast tumor into the circulation through local invasion and intravasation^{15, 16}. These circulating tumor cells (CTCs) must survive hemodynamic shear forces and immune surveillance to reach distant sites such as the bone marrow, where they can extravasate and establish micro metastatic foci.

The bone marrow microenvironment offers a unique and conducive niche for disseminated tumor cells (DTCs). It comprises a heterogeneous population of hematopoietic stem cells, mesenchymal stromal cells, osteoblasts, osteoclasts, endothelial cells, and immune components embedded within an extracellular matrix rich in growth factors and cytokines¹⁷. This complex milieu facilitates the homing, survival, and dormancy of breast cancer cells. Chemokine gradients, notably stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF-1 or CXCL12) and its receptor CXCR4 expressed on tumor cells, play a critical role in guiding DTCs to the bone marrow niche¹⁸.

Once localized within the bone marrow, breast cancer cells interact dynamically with the surrounding stromal cells and extracellular matrix components. These interactions modulate tumor cell behavior, promoting survival pathways, quiescence, and resistance to apoptosis¹⁹. The induction of a dormant state allows DTCs to evade the cytotoxic effects of systemic therapies that typically target proliferating cells, thereby contributing to minimal residual disease²⁰.

Moreover, breast cancer cells can influence bone remodeling processes by secreting factors such as parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP), which stimulates osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. This creates a vicious cycle wherein bone degradation releases growth factors like transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) from the bone matrix, further enhancing tumor growth and progression within the marrow niche²¹.

The dynamic interplay between tumor cells and the bone marrow microenvironment also involves immune modulation. DTCs can induce an immunosuppressive milieu through recruitment of regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and by altering antigen presentation²². This immune evasion facilitates their persistence and eventual outgrowth into overt bone metastases.

The accurate detection of bone marrow infiltration (BMI) by breast cancer cells is paramount for early diagnosis of micro metastatic disease and risk stratification. Various diagnostic modalities, ranging from invasive to non-invasive approaches, have been developed and refined to identify disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) within the bone marrow and assess metastatic spread.

Bone marrow biopsy and aspiration remain the gold standard for confirming marrow involvement. Typically performed at the posterior iliac crest, these procedures allow direct sampling of the marrow for cytological and histopathological examination. Morphological analysis alone, however, may fail to detect low numbers of isolated tumor cells due to sampling limitations and the often-sparse distribution of DTCs. Consequently, adjunctive techniques are employed to enhance sensitivity¹².

Immunocytochemical staining significantly improves the detection of breast cancer cells in marrow samples by targeting epithelial markers that are absent in hematopoietic cells^[23]. Cytokeratin’s (e.g., CK8, CK18, CK19) are commonly used markers for identifying epithelial tumor cells. Immunohistochemistry on bone marrow biopsies further enables visualization of tumor clusters and assessment of cell morphology, providing both qualitative and semi-quantitative data²⁴. These methods increase diagnostic accuracy and help distinguish malignant cells from benign hematopoietic elements.

Molecular assays, such as reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), have revolutionized the sensitivity of BMI detection. RT-PCR can amplify tumor-specific transcripts (e.g., cytokeratin 19 mRNA, mammaglobin) from marrow aspirates, enabling detection of even a few tumor cells among millions of normal cells²⁵. This high sensitivity facilitates early identification of micro metastatic disease but also raises concerns about false positives from ectopic expression or contaminating cells, necessitating stringent assay standardization.

Conventional imaging methods, including bone scintigraphy, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), provide indirect evidence of bone involvement by detecting structural or metabolic changes. While effective for identifying established bone metastases, these modalities lack the resolution to detect early marrow infiltration or isolated tumor cells²⁶. Novel imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET) using specific radiotracers (e.g., 18F-FDG, 18F-NaF) offer enhanced sensitivity for detecting metabolically active lesions, but their role in detecting micro metastatic BMI remains limited²⁷.

Emerging non-invasive methods such as liquid biopsy analyze circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in peripheral blood as surrogate markers of metastatic disease, including bone marrow involvement²⁸. Although still investigational, these approaches offer the advantage of repeated sampling for monitoring disease progression and treatment response without the need for invasive marrow biopsies (Table 1 and Table 2 ²⁹.

 

 

Table 1: Diagnostic Approaches for Detecting Bone Marrow Infiltration in Breast Cancer

Diagnostic Method	Principle	Advantages	Limitations
Bone Marrow Biopsy	Histological examination for metastatic tumor cells	Gold standard; definitive diagnosis	Invasive; sampling errors possible
Bone Marrow Aspiration Cytology	Microscopic identification of tumor cells in aspirate	Quick and cost-effective	May miss focal infiltrates
Immunohistochemistry (Cytokeratin, EpCAM)	Detects epithelial markers in marrow samples	High specificity for tumor cells	Requires technical expertise
MRI	Evaluates marrow replacement and edema patterns	Non-invasive and sensitive for early infiltration	Limited specificity without biopsy confirmation
PET/CT	Detects metabolic activity of metastatic lesions	High sensitivity for active disease	High cost; may miss micrometastases

 

Table 2: Comparison of Diagnostic Modalities in Breast Cancer to detect Bone marrow infiltration (BMI)

Methods	Working principle	Advantages
RT-PCR	Uses RT-PCR to amplify the mRNA from aspirates.	Highly sensitive cells.
Bone marrow Biopsy	Direct histological examination via staining for epithelial markers.	Provides actual morphology
CTCs	Detects circulating tumor cells from blood smear	It is minimal invasive and allow for continuous monitoring
ctDNA	Detection of tumor derived DNA in plasma through the sequencing	Minimal invasive and it reveal specific and actual mutations
CT imagine or FDG/PET	detect metabolically active lesions with the help of glucose uptake.	Helps to detect the microscopic metastatic disease.

 

 

 

Bone marrow infiltration (BMI) by disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in breast cancer patients carries significant prognostic value, reflecting the presence of minimal residual disease that often precedes clinical relapse^{13, 25, 30}. Numerous clinical studies and meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated that detection of tumor cells within the bone marrow correlates with poorer outcomes, including increased rates of disease recurrence and reduced overall survival^{12, 25}.

The presence of DTCs in the bone marrow is associated with a higher risk of both local and distant metastases, particularly to bone and visceral organs. This underscores the role of BMI as an early marker of metastatic potential. Patients with detectable BMI often exhibit more aggressive tumor biology, including higher histological grade, lymphovascular invasion, and hormone receptor negativity, which collectively contribute to adverse prognostic profiles²⁵.

In addition to predicting relapse, bone marrow micro metastases have been linked to resistance to systemic therapies such as chemotherapy and hormonal treatments. The dormant nature of DTCs within the marrow niche renders them less susceptible to agents targeting rapidly dividing cells, posing challenges for eradication and contributing to treatment failure^[30]. Consequently, BMI detection can serve as a tool to identify high-risk patients who may benefit from intensified or novel therapeutic strategies³⁰.

Furthermore, serial assessment of bone marrow involvement during the course of treatment can provide insights into therapeutic response and disease progression. Persistence or reappearance of DTCs after adjuvant therapy is associated with a substantially increased risk of relapse, highlighting its utility as a biomarker for minimal residual disease monitoring (Table 3 and Table 4) ³⁰.

 

 

Table 3: Hematologic and Biochemical Markers Suggestive of Bone Marrow Infiltration

Parameter	Typical Finding	Clinical Interpretation
Hemoglobin	Decreased	Anemia due to marrow replacement
Platelet Count	Reduced	Thrombocytopenia from tumor infiltration
WBC Count	Variable (often low)	Leukopenia or pancytopenia
LDH	Elevated	Reflects tumor burden and cellular turnover
Alkaline Phosphatase	Increased	Indicates bone or liver metastasis
ESR	Elevated	Nonspecific marker of inflammation or malignancy

 

Table 4: Prognostic Implications of Bone Marrow Involvement in Breast Cancer

Prognostic Factor	Impact on Clinical Outcome	Clinical Relevance
Extent of Marrow Involvement	Greater infiltration associated with poor survival	Guides treatment aggressiveness
Molecular Subtype (e.g., HER2+, TNBC)	Triple-negative and HER2+ subtypes show higher marrow tropism	Influences metastatic risk assessment
Cytopenias at Diagnosis	Predicts early relapse and poor response to therapy	May warrant supportive management
Response to Systemic Therapy	Partial or complete response improves survival	Marker for therapeutic efficacy
Circulating Tumor Cells	Correlates with marrow metastasis and disease progression	Useful for monitoring disease burden

 

 

The detection of bone marrow infiltration (BMI) by breast cancer cells offers several promising clinical applications, particularly in the domains of risk stratification, therapeutic decision-making, and disease monitoring. Despite being primarily a research tool to date, BMI assessment has the potential to transform clinical management by identifying patients with micro metastatic disease who are at higher risk of recurrence.

Incorporating BMI status into existing prognostic models can improve the accuracy of risk stratification[30]. Patients with detectable disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) in the bone marrow often harbor occult systemic disease, even in early-stage breast cancer¹². Identifying these high-risk individuals may help tailor follow-up intensity and guide more aggressive treatment approaches, such as extended adjuvant therapy or inclusion in clinical trials exploring novel agents.

The presence of BMI may inform therapeutic choices, particularly regarding the need for intensified systemic therapy. For example, patients with micro metastases in the bone marrow might benefit from additional or alternative chemotherapy regimens, targeted therapies, or bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates or denosumab to disrupt the tumor-bone microenvironment³¹. Moreover, understanding tumor cell dormancy and mechanisms of resistance associated with BMI could lead to development of treatments specifically targeting dormant cells ^31-32.

Serial evaluation of bone marrow for DTCs provides a method for monitoring minimal residual disease (MRD) during and after therapy²⁵. Persistence or re-emergence of tumor cells in the marrow can signal treatment failure or impending relapse, potentially allowing earlier intervention³⁰. This dynamic monitoring could facilitate adaptive therapeutic strategies, optimizing outcomes by escalating or de-escalating treatment based on marrow status ³³.

While bone marrow biopsy is invasive and not routinely performed in clinical practice, advances in liquid biopsy technologies offer less invasive alternatives for assessing metastatic risk. Detection of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in peripheral blood may serve as surrogate markers of bone marrow micro metastasis, enabling frequent and longitudinal disease monitoring with minimal patient discomfort (Table 5) ^32-33.

 

 

Table 5: Therapeutic Strategies and Emerging Interventions for Bone Marrow Metastasis in Breast Cancer

Therapeutic Approach	Mechanism/Target	Clinical Benefit	Limitations
Systemic Chemotherapy	Cytotoxic agents targeting proliferating cells	Symptom relief and survival extension	Myelosuppression; limited marrow recovery
Targeted Therapy (HER2 inhibitors, CDK4/6 inhibitors)	Molecular targeting of tumor pathways	Improved outcomes in subtype-specific disease	Resistance and toxicity risks
Endocrine Therapy	Hormonal modulation in ER+ disease	Long-term disease control	Ineffective in hormone receptor-negative tumors
Bisphosphonates/Denosumab	Inhibits osteoclast-mediated bone resorption	Reduces skeletal-related events	Hypocalcemia; osteonecrosis risk
Hematopoietic Growth Factors	Stimulates marrow regeneration	Reduces cytopenia-related complications	May promote tumor growth if uncontrolled

 

 

Bone marrow infiltration by breast cancer cells represents a critical and early event in the metastatic process with profound diagnostic and prognostic implications. The presence of disseminated tumor cells within the marrow niche signals minimal residual disease and a higher likelihood of disease recurrence and poor survival outcomes. Although bone marrow biopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard, advances in immunocytochemical and molecular techniques have significantly enhanced detection sensitivity, paving the way for more precise identification of micro metastases. Clinically, the assessment of bone marrow infiltration offers valuable opportunities for improved risk stratification and personalized treatment approaches. Detecting tumor cells in the marrow can guide therapeutic intensification and provide a framework for monitoring minimal residual disease, potentially enabling earlier intervention and better management of metastatic progression. Despite challenges related to invasiveness and standardization, emerging non-invasive techniques such as liquid biopsies hold promise for broader clinical application.

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of interest concerning the contents, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Contributions: All authors have equal contributions in the preparation of the manuscript and compilation.

Source of Support: Nil

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. 

Data Availability Statement: The data supporting this paper are available in the cited references. 

Ethical approval: Not applicable.

 

Abbreviation	Meaning
BMI	Bone Marrow Infiltration
CTC	Circulating Tumor Cell
ctDNA	Circulating Tumor DNA
CXCR4	C-X-C Motif Chemokine Receptor 4
ER	Estrogen Receptor
HER2	Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2
IHC	Immunohistochemistry
LDH	Lactate Dehydrogenase
MRI	Magnetic Resonance Imaging
PET/CT	Positron Emission Tomography–Computed Tomography
PR	Progesterone Receptor
TNBC	Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
VEGF	Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor
WBC	White Blood Cell

 

References

1. World Health Organization. Breast cancer.: W.H.O.; 2025 [cited 2025 october 16]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/breast-cancer.

2. Yu J, Mu Q, Fung M, Xu X, Zhu L, Ho RJY. Challenges and opportunities in metastatic breast cancer treatments: Nano-drug combinations delivered preferentially to metastatic cells may enhance therapeutic response. Pharmacol Ther. 2022;236:108108. PMid:34999182 PMCid:PMC9256851 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2022.108108 

3. Pang L, Gan C, Xu J, Jia Y, Chai J, Huang R, et al. Bone Metastasis of Breast Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Strategies. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(23). PMid:36497209 PMCid:PMC9738274 https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235727 

4. Hofbauer LC, Bozec A, Rauner M, Jakob F, Perner S, Pantel K. Novel approaches to target the microenvironment of bone metastasis. Nature reviews Clinical oncology. 2021;18(8):488-505. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-021-00499-9 PMid:33875860

5. Krishnamurthy S, Cristofanilli M, Singh B, Reuben J, Gao H, Cohen EN, et al. Detection of minimal residual disease in blood and bone marrow in early stage breast cancer. Cancer. 2010;116(14):3330-3337. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25145 PMid:20564098

6. Chen F, Han Y, Kang Y. Bone marrow niches in the regulation of bone metastasis. British Journal of Cancer. 2021;124(12):1912-1920. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01329-6 PMid:33758331 PMCid:PMC8184962

7. Wieder R. Awakening of dormant breast cancer cells in the bone marrow. Cancers. 2023;15(11):3021. PMid:37296983 PMCid:PMC10252003 https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15113021 

8. Vincent-Salomon A, Bidard F-C, Pierga J-Y. Bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer: review of detection methods, prognostic impact and biological issues. Journal of clinical pathology. 2008;61(5):570-576. PMid:18037661 PMCid:PMC2564844 https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2007.046649 

9. Tomasian A, Jennings JW. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy: techniques and practice implications. Skeletal Radiology. 2022;51(1):81-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-021-03882-w PMid:34398308

10. Baker M, Gillanders WE, Mikhitarian K, Mitas M, Cole DJ. The molecular detection of micrometastatic breast cancer. The American journal of surgery. 2003;186(4):351-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00262-9 

11. Kamińska P, Buszka K, Zabel M, Nowicki M, Alix-Panabieres C, Budna-Tukan J. Liquid biopsy in melanoma: significance in diagnostics, prediction and treatment monitoring. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22(18):9714. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22189714 PMid:34575876 

12. Braun S, Vogl FD, Naume B, Janni W, Osborne MP, Coombes RC, et al. A pooled analysis of bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer. New England journal of medicine. 2005;353(8):793-802. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa050434 PMid:16120859

13. Janni W, Vogl FD, Wiedswang G, Synnestvedt M, Fehm T, Jückstock J, et al. Persistence of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients predicts increased risk for relapse-a European pooled analysis. Clinical Cancer Research. 2011;17(9):2967-2976. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2515 PMid:21415211

15. Hartkopf AD, Taran F-A, Wallwiener M, Hahn M, Becker S, Solomayer E-F, et al. Prognostic relevance of disseminated tumour cells from the bone marrow of early stage breast cancer patients-results from a large single-centre analysis. European journal of cancer. 2014;50(15):2550-2559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.06.025 PMid:25096167

16. Massagué J, Obenauf AC. Metastatic colonization by circulating tumour cells. Nature. 2016;529(7586):298-306. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17038 PMid:26791720 PMCid:PMC5029466

17. Weilbaecher KN, Guise TA, McCauley LK. Cancer to bone: a fatal attraction. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2011;11(6):411-425. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3055 PMid:21593787 PMCid:PMC3666847

18. Peinado H, Zhang H, Matei IR, Costa-Silva B, Hoshino A, Rodrigues G, et al. Pre-metastatic niches: organ-specific homes for metastases. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2017;17(5):302-317. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2017.6 PMid:28303905 

19. Wang H, Tian L, Liu J, Goldstein A, Bado I, Zhang W, et al. The osteogenic niche is a calcium reservoir of bone micrometastases and confers unexpected therapeutic vulnerability. Cancer cell. 2018;34(5):823-839. e7. PMid:30423299 PMCid:PMC6239211 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.10.002 

20. Eiro N, Gonzalez LO, Fraile M, Cid S, Schneider J, Vizoso FJ. Breast cancer tumor stroma: cellular components, phenotypic heterogeneity, intercellular communication, prognostic implications and therapeutic opportunities. Cancers. 2019;11(5):664. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11050664 PMid:31086100 PMCid:PMC6562436

21. Gomis RR, Gawrzak S. Tumor cell dormancy. Molecular oncology. 2017;11(1):62-78. PMid:28017284 PMCid:PMC5423221 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molonc.2016.09.009 

22. Croucher PI, McDonald MM, Martin TJ. Bone metastasis: the importance of the neighbourhood. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2016;16(6):373-86. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2016.44 PMid:27220481

23. Sceneay J, Smyth MJ, Möller A. The pre-metastatic niche: finding common ground. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews. 2013;32(3):449-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-013-9420-1 PMid:23636348

24. Borgen E, Naume B, Nesland J, Kvalheim G, Beiske K, Fodstad Ø, et al. Standardization of the immunocytochemical detection of cancer cells in BM and blood: I. establishment of objective criteria for the evaluation of immunostained cells. Cytotherapy. 1999;1(5):377-388. PMid:20426539 https://doi.org/10.1080/0032472031000141283 

25. Pantel K, Alix-Panabières C. Liquid biopsy and minimal residual disease-latest advances and implications for cure. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2019;16(7):409-424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-019-0187-3 PMid:30796368

26. Hartkopf AD, Brucker SY, Taran FA, Harbeck N, von Au A, Naume B, et al. Disseminated tumour cells from the bone marrow of early breast cancer patients: Results from an international pooled analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2021;154:128-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.028 PMid:34265505

27. Riedl CC, Pinker K, Ulaner GA, Ong LT, Baltzer P, Jochelson MS, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET/CT and contrast-enhanced CT for monitoring therapy response in patients with metastatic breast cancer. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging. 2017;44(9):1428-1437. PMCid:PMC5526620 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3703-7 

28. Ulaner GA, Silverstein M, Nangia C, Tetef M, Vandermolen L, Coleman C, et al. ER-Targeted PET for Initial Staging and Suspected Recurrence in ER-Positive Breast Cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(7):e2423435. PMCid:PMC11282447 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.23435 

29. Cristofanilli M, Pierga J-Y, Reuben J, Rademaker A, Davis AA, Peeters DJ, et al. The clinical use of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) enumeration for staging of metastatic breast cancer (MBC): International expert consensus paper. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology. 2019;134:39-45. PMid:30771872 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.12.004 

30. Ignatiadis M, Lee M, Jeffrey SS. Circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA: challenges and opportunities on the path to clinical utility. Clinical Cancer Research. 2015;21(21):4786-4800. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1190 PMid:26527805

31. Janni WJ, Rack B, Terstappen LW, Pierga JY, Taran FA, Fehm T, et al. Pooled Analysis of the Prognostic Relevance of Circulating Tumor Cells in Primary Breast Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(10):2583-2593. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1603 PMid:26733614 PMCid:PMC10670968

32. Coleman R. Bone-Targeted Agents and Metastasis Prevention. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(15). PMid:35892899 PMCid:PMC9367604 https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14153640 

33. Coombes RC, Page K, Salari R, Hastings RK, Armstrong A, Ahmed S, et al. Personalized Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA Antedates Breast Cancer Metastatic Recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(14):4255-4263. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3663 PMid:30992300 PMCid:PMC10670968