OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual size of breast tumors following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted part of the management of stage II and III breast cancer. Accurate prediction of residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is critical in guiding surgical therapy. Although physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography have all been used to predict residual tumor size, there have been conflicting reports about the accuracy of these methods in the neoadjuvant setting. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 189 patients who participated in 1 of 2 protocols using doxorubicin-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who had assessment by physical examination, ultrasonography, and/or mammography no more than 60 days before their surgical resection. Size correlations were performed using Spearman rho analysis. Clinical and pathologic measurements were also compared categorically using the weighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: Size estimates by physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately correlated with residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (correlation coefficients: 0.42, 0.42, and 0.41, respectively), with an accuracy of +/-1 cm in 66% of patients by physical examination, 75% by ultrasonography, and 70% by mammography. Kappa values (0.24-0.35) indicated poor agreement between clinical and pathologic measurements. CONCLUSION: Physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately useful for predicting residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography in predicting residual size of breast tumors following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an accepted part of the management of stage II and III breast cancer. Accurate prediction of residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is critical in guiding surgical therapy. Although physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography have all been used to predict residual tumor size, there have been conflicting reports about the accuracy of these methods in the neoadjuvant setting. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 189 patients who participated in 1 of 2 protocols using doxorubicin-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and who had assessment by physical examination, ultrasonography, and/or mammography no more than 60 days before their surgical resection. Size correlations were performed using Spearman rho analysis. Clinical and pathologic measurements were also compared categorically using the weighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: Size estimates by physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately correlated with residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (correlation coefficients: 0.42, 0.42, and 0.41, respectively), with an accuracy of +/-1 cm in 66% of patients by physical examination, 75% by ultrasonography, and 70% by mammography. Kappa values (0.24-0.35) indicated poor agreement between clinical and pathologic measurements. CONCLUSION: Physical examination, ultrasonography, and mammography were only moderately useful for predicting residual pathologic tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: H M Kuerer; S E Singletary; A U Buzdar; F C Ames; V Valero; T A Buchholz; M I Ross; L Pusztai; G N Hortobagyi; K K Hunt Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sandy C Lee; Edward Grant; Pulin Sheth; Agustin A Garcia; Bhushan Desai; Lingyun Ji; Susan Groshen; Darryl Hwang; Mary Yamashita; Linda Hovanessian-Larsen Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Marieke E M van der Noordaa; Ileana Ioan; Emiel J Rutgers; Erik van Werkhoven; Claudette E Loo; Rosie Voorthuis; Jelle Wesseling; Japke van Urk; Terry Wiersma; Vincent Dezentje; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Frederieke H van Duijnhoven Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mathew L Thakur; Kaijun Zhang; Adam Berger; Barbara Cavanaugh; Sung Kim; Chaitra Channappa; Andrea J Frangos; Eric Wickstrom; Charles M Intenzo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jennifer F De Los Santos; Alan Cantor; Keith D Amos; Andres Forero; Mehra Golshan; Janet K Horton; Clifford A Hudis; Nola M Hylton; Kandace McGuire; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ingrid M Meszoely; Rita Nanda; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Laura S Dominici; Monica Morrow; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Jennifer Bellon; Tari A King Journal: Curr Probl Surg Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: J Dose-Schwarz; R Tiling; S Avril-Sassen; S Mahner; A Lebeau; C Weber; M Schwaiger; F Jänicke; M Untch; N Avril Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 7.640