PURPOSE: The accuracy of breast cancer staging involves the estimation of the tumor size for the initial decision-making in the treatment. We investigated the accuracy of tumor size estimation and the association between tumor characteristics and breast density (BD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 434 women with a primary diagnosis of breast cancer were included in this prospective study at a specialist breast unit. Estimated tumor characteristics included tumor size, nodal status, estrogen/progesterone receptor status, Ki-67, HER2/neu, vascular invasion. Radiomorphological data included tumor size as assessed by mammography, breast ultrasonography, and clinical examination, and American College of Radiology (ACR) categories for BD. RESULTS: BD did not have a significant impact on the assessment of tumor size using breast ultrasound (deviation from ACR categories 1-4: 0.55-0.68 cm; P=0.331). The deviation in mammography was significantly different dependent on BD (0.42-0.9 cm; P<0.001). The clinical examination was not affected by BD. Age and tumor size were the only parameters associated with a denser breast in the multivariate analysis. Older women were less likely to have dense breasts (odds ratio 0.157 for women aged >or=70 years), and patients with larger tumors were less likely to have dense breasts (adjusted OR 0.36 for tumors>2 cm). CONCLUSION: Breast ultrasonography is more accurate than mammography for assessing tumor size in breasts with a higher BD. The difference in tumor size assessment needs to be taken into consideration in the design of clinical trials and treatment decisions.
PURPOSE: The accuracy of breast cancer staging involves the estimation of the tumor size for the initial decision-making in the treatment. We investigated the accuracy of tumor size estimation and the association between tumor characteristics and breast density (BD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 434 women with a primary diagnosis of breast cancer were included in this prospective study at a specialist breast unit. Estimated tumor characteristics included tumor size, nodal status, estrogen/progesterone receptor status, Ki-67, HER2/neu, vascular invasion. Radiomorphological data included tumor size as assessed by mammography, breast ultrasonography, and clinical examination, and American College of Radiology (ACR) categories for BD. RESULTS: BD did not have a significant impact on the assessment of tumor size using breast ultrasound (deviation from ACR categories 1-4: 0.55-0.68 cm; P=0.331). The deviation in mammography was significantly different dependent on BD (0.42-0.9 cm; P<0.001). The clinical examination was not affected by BD. Age and tumor size were the only parameters associated with a denser breast in the multivariate analysis. Older women were less likely to have dense breasts (odds ratio 0.157 for women aged >or=70 years), and patients with larger tumors were less likely to have dense breasts (adjusted OR 0.36 for tumors>2 cm). CONCLUSION: Breast ultrasonography is more accurate than mammography for assessing tumor size in breasts with a higher BD. The difference in tumor size assessment needs to be taken into consideration in the design of clinical trials and treatment decisions.
Authors: Michael S Shawky; Cecilia W Huo; Kara Britt; Erik W Thompson; Michael A Henderson; Andrew Redfern Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-06-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: P A Fasching; S Y Brucker; T N Fehm; F Overkamp; W Janni; M Wallwiener; P Hadji; E Belleville; L Häberle; F-A Taran; D Lüftner; M P Lux; J Ettl; V Müller; H Tesch; D Wallwiener; A Schneeweiss Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Martina Meier-Meitinger; Lothar Häberle; Peter A Fasching; Mayada R Bani; Katharina Heusinger; David Wachter; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael Uder; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Boris Adamietz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lusine Yaghjyan; Graham A Colditz; Laura C Collins; Stuart J Schnitt; Bernard Rosner; Celine Vachon; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: P A Fasching; A B Ekici; D L Wachter; A Hein; C M Bayer; L Häberle; C R Loehberg; M Schneider; S M Jud; K Heusinger; M Rübner; C Rauh; M R Bani; M P Lux; R Schulz-Wendtland; A Hartmann; M W Beckmann Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: E M Fallenberg; C Dromain; F Diekmann; F Engelken; M Krohn; J M Singh; B Ingold-Heppner; K J Winzer; U Bick; D M Renz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 5.315