Literature DB >> 20224728

Does size matter? Comparison study between MRI, gross, and microscopic tumor sizes in breast cancer in lumpectomy specimens.

Bita Behjatnia1, Julie Sim, Lawrence W Bassett, Neda A Moatamed, Sophia K Apple.   

Abstract

Size of breast cancer is essential in staging cancer to determine type and extent of patient management. This study was conducted to assess accuracy in estimating tumor size by MRI and gross using microscopy as gold standard. A retrospective study was done on 33 patients, 30-75 years, who underwent MRI of breasts with subsequent lumpectomy, 2002-2006, for invasive breast cancer. Size of lesion(s) on MRI and gross were compared with histological size. Of 37 lesions, 27 (73%) were invasive ductal (IDC) and 10 (27%) invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). Tumor size by MRI matched histological size in 3%, underestimated 27%, and overestimated 70% of cases. Tumor size by gross matched histological size in 22%, underestimated 57%, and overestimated 22% of cases. MRI as an imaging modality and gross pathology both have significant limitations in measuring tumor size particularly in cases of invasive breast carcinoma. Random sectioning of lumpectomy specimen in invasive breast carcinoma may result in inaccurate staging of tumor by leading to false impression of tumor size and multi-focality and/or multi-centricity of tumor particularly in cases of ILC. Microscopic measurements of tumor size are necessary for accurate T-staging and recommended for appropriate patient management.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; MRI; gross pathology; microscopic pathology; tumor size

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20224728      PMCID: PMC2836507     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol        ISSN: 1936-2625


  9 in total

1.  Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging.

Authors:  L Esserman; N Hylton; L Yassa; J Barclay; S Frankel; E Sickles
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  The effect of tissue fixation and processing on breast cancer size.

Authors:  Bobbi Pritt; Joseph J Tessitore; Donald L Weaver; Hagen Blaszyk
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.466

3.  How do we measure a residual tumor size in histopathology (the gold standard) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Authors:  S K Apple; F Suthar
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-09-26       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Gary Mason; Elizabeth A Morris; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999.

Authors:  P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 6.  Imaging breast cancer.

Authors:  Lia Bartella; Clare S Smith; D David Dershaw; Laura Liberman
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Extensive sampling changes T-staging of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of breast: a comparative study of gross versus microscopic tumor sizes.

Authors:  Neda A Moatamed; Sophia K Apple
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.431

8.  Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements.

Authors:  Bobbi Pritt; Takamaru Ashikaga; Robert G Oppenheimer; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 7.842

9.  Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography and histopathology in breast neoplasms.

Authors:  M Kristoffersen Wiberg; P Aspelin; M Sylvan; B Boné
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-11-19       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total
  23 in total

1.  Re: "Behjatnia B et al. "Does size matter? Comparison study between MRI, gross, and microscopic tumor sizes in breast cancer in lumpectomy specimens". IntJ Clin Exp Pathol 2010;3(3):303-309".

Authors:  Vinita Parkash; Akosua Domfeh; Paul Cohen; Oluwole Fadare
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2010-04-30

2.  Which factors influence MRI-pathology concordance of tumour size measurements in breast cancer?

Authors:  M Rominger; D Berg; T Frauenfelder; A Ramaswamy; N Timmesfeld
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Role of MRI in the staging of breast cancer patients: does histological type and molecular subtype matter?

Authors:  Almir G V Bitencourt; Nara P Pereira; Luciana K L França; Caroline B Silva; Jociana Paludo; Hugo L S Paiva; Luciana Graziano; Camila S Guatelli; Juliana A Souza; Elvira F Marques
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Value of ultrafast and standard dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the presence and extension of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

Authors:  Erina Kato; Naoko Mori; Shunji Mugikura; Satoko Sato; Takanori Ishida; Kei Takase
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2021-03-20       Impact factor: 2.374

5.  Topographic enhancement mapping of the cancer-associated breast stroma using breast MRI.

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

6.  Genetically modified bacteria as a tool to detect microscopic solid tumor masses with triggered release of a recombinant biomarker.

Authors:  Jan T Panteli; Brittany A Forkus; Nele Van Dessel; Neil S Forbes
Journal:  Integr Biol (Camb)       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.192

7.  Feasibility of mapping breast cancer with supine breast MRI in patients scheduled for oncoplastic surgery.

Authors:  S Joukainen; A Masarwah; M Könönen; M Husso; A Sutela; V Kärjä; R Vanninen; M Sudah
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI-correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen.

Authors:  Tomas Cortadellas; Paula Argacha; Juan Acosta; Jordi Rabasa; Ricardo Peiró; Margarita Gomez; Laura Rodellar; Sandra Gomez; Alejandra Navarro-Golobart; Sonia Sanchez-Mendez; Milagros Martinez-Medina; Mireia Botey; Carlos Muñoz-Ramos; Manel Xiberta
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

9.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.

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

10.  A model study of 3-dimensional localization of breast tumors using piezoelectric fingers of different probe sizes.

Authors:  Xin Xu; Wei-Heng Shih; Wan Y Shih
Journal:  Rev Sci Instrum       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 1.523

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.