BACKGROUND: As physicians increasingly use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancers, a review of the correlation between MRI and pathology tumor size is imperative. METHODS: A retrospective review of 91 breast tumors comparing preoperative MRI tumor size to final pathology tumor size was performed. RESULTS: MRI and pathology tumor size were positively correlated (R = .650), but with an average overestimation by MRI of .63 cm (P <.0001). When stratified by MRI tumor size (< or = 2.0 cm and > 2.0 cm), a significant difference was found only in tumors greater than 2.0 cm (average overestimation = 1.06 cm; P <.0001). This trend continued for the histological subtypes of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). CONCLUSIONS: MRI tumor size correlates with pathology size; however, a significant overestimation exists, particularly for tumors > 2.0 cm. Clinicians should therefore use caution in relying on MRI tumor size in determining candidacy for breast conservation therapy (BCT).
BACKGROUND: As physicians increasingly use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancers, a review of the correlation between MRI and pathology tumor size is imperative. METHODS: A retrospective review of 91 breast tumors comparing preoperative MRI tumor size to final pathology tumor size was performed. RESULTS: MRI and pathology tumor size were positively correlated (R = .650), but with an average overestimation by MRI of .63 cm (P <.0001). When stratified by MRI tumor size (< or = 2.0 cm and > 2.0 cm), a significant difference was found only in tumors greater than 2.0 cm (average overestimation = 1.06 cm; P <.0001). This trend continued for the histological subtypes of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). CONCLUSIONS: MRI tumor size correlates with pathology size; however, a significant overestimation exists, particularly for tumors > 2.0 cm. Clinicians should therefore use caution in relying on MRI tumor size in determining candidacy for breast conservation therapy (BCT).
Authors: Nima Nabavizadeh; Catherine Klifa; David Newitt; Ying Lu; Yunn-Yi Chen; Howard Hsu; Clark Fisher; Taku Tokayasu; Adam B Olshen; Paul Spellman; Joe W Gray; Nola Hylton; Catherine C Park Journal: Integr Biol (Camb) Date: 2011-03-18 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Kathryn L Davis; Richard J Barth; Jiang Gui; Elizabeth Dann; Burton Eisenberg; Kari Rosenkranz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Rong Tang; Mansi Saksena; Suzanne B Coopey; Leopoldo Fernandez; Julliette M Buckley; Lan Lei; Owen Aftreth; Frederick Koerner; James Michaelson; Elizabeth Rafferty; Elena Brachtel; Barbara L Smith Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 3.039