C A Finlayson1, T A MacDermott. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver 80262, USA. christina.finlayson@uchsc.edu
Abstract
HYPOTHESIS: Ultrasound (US) of the breast will accurately measure breast tumor size when compared with size as determined by pathologic examination. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: University hospital-based breast center. PATIENTS: Thirty-five women with a diagnosis of breast cancer who had US as a component of their evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Tumor size as measured by US compared with size measured by pathologic examination. RESULTS: Size measured by US ranged from 0.45 to 3.81 cm. Size measured by pathologic examination ranged from 0.5 to 5 cm. The mean difference of size measured by US vs pathologic size was 0.4 cm (P = .01). When only tumors with invasive ductal histology are evaluated, the mean difference in size is 0.33 cm (P = .008). The range of difference was -1.6 cm to +0.42 cm. Seventeen percent of invasive ductal tumors were underestimated by more than 1 cm; none were underestimated by more than 2 cm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, although US tends to underestimate the pathologic tumor size, 83% of invasive ductal tumors fall within a 1-cm and 100% fall within a 2-cm extension of the US-measured tumor size. Therefore, it is possible to use US to monitor the extent of treatment size when developing very localized therapeutic tools.
HYPOTHESIS: Ultrasound (US) of the breast will accurately measure breast tumor size when compared with size as determined by pathologic examination. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: University hospital-based breast center. PATIENTS: Thirty-five women with a diagnosis of breast cancer who had US as a component of their evaluation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Tumor size as measured by US compared with size measured by pathologic examination. RESULTS: Size measured by US ranged from 0.45 to 3.81 cm. Size measured by pathologic examination ranged from 0.5 to 5 cm. The mean difference of size measured by US vs pathologic size was 0.4 cm (P = .01). When only tumors with invasive ductal histology are evaluated, the mean difference in size is 0.33 cm (P = .008). The range of difference was -1.6 cm to +0.42 cm. Seventeen percent of invasive ductal tumors were underestimated by more than 1 cm; none were underestimated by more than 2 cm. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, although US tends to underestimate the pathologic tumor size, 83% of invasive ductal tumors fall within a 1-cm and 100% fall within a 2-cm extension of the US-measured tumor size. Therefore, it is possible to use US to monitor the extent of treatment size when developing very localized therapeutic tools.
Authors: Rebecca Axelsson; Hanna Tomic; Sophia Zackrisson; Anders Tingberg; Hanna Isaksson; Predrag R Bakic; Magnus Dustler Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: S van Esser; W B Veldhuis; R van Hillegersberg; P J van Diest; G Stapper; M ElOuamari; I H M Borel Rinkes; W P Th M Mali; M A A J van den Bosch Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2007-05-15 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Wafa M Sarraj; Rong Tang; Anas L Najjar; Molly Griffin; Anthony H Bui; Alan Zambeli-Ljepovic; Mike Senter-Zapata; Maya Lewin-Berlin; Leopoldo Fernandez; Juliette Buckley; Amy Ly; Elena Brachtel; Owen Aftreth; John Gilbertson; Yukako Yagi; Michele Gadd; Kevin S Hughes; Barbara L Smith; James S Michaelson Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2015-11-27