OBJECTIVES: Tumour size estimates using mammography (MG), conventional ultrasound (US), compound imaging (CI) and real-time elastography (RTE) were compared with histopathological specimen sizes. METHODS: The largest diameters of 97 malignant breast lesions were measured. Two US and CI measurements were made: US1/CI1 (hypoechoic nucleus only) and US2/CI2 (hypoechoic nucleus plus hyperechoic halo). Measurements were compared with histopathological tumour sizes using linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Size prediction was best with ultrasound (US/CI/RTE: R (2) 0.31-0.36); mammography was poorer (R(2) = 0.19). The most accurate method was US2, while US1 and CI1 were poorest. Bland-Altman plots showed better size estimation with US2, CI2 and RTE, with low variation, while mammography showed greatest variability. Smaller tumours were better assessed than larger ones. CI2 and US2 performed best for ductal tumours and RTE for lobular cancers. Tumour size prediction accuracy did not correlate significantly with breast density, but on MG tumours were more difficult to detect in high-density tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The size of ductal tumours is best predicted with US2 and CI2, while for lobular cancers RTE is best. Hyperechoic tumour surroundings should be included in US and CI measurements and RTE used as an additional technique in the clinical staging process.
OBJECTIVES:Tumour size estimates using mammography (MG), conventional ultrasound (US), compound imaging (CI) and real-time elastography (RTE) were compared with histopathological specimen sizes. METHODS: The largest diameters of 97 malignant breast lesions were measured. Two US and CI measurements were made: US1/CI1 (hypoechoic nucleus only) and US2/CI2 (hypoechoic nucleus plus hyperechoic halo). Measurements were compared with histopathological tumour sizes using linear regression and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Size prediction was best with ultrasound (US/CI/RTE: R (2) 0.31-0.36); mammography was poorer (R(2) = 0.19). The most accurate method was US2, while US1 and CI1 were poorest. Bland-Altman plots showed better size estimation with US2, CI2 and RTE, with low variation, while mammography showed greatest variability. Smaller tumours were better assessed than larger ones. CI2 and US2 performed best for ductal tumours and RTE for lobular cancers. Tumour size prediction accuracy did not correlate significantly with breast density, but on MG tumours were more difficult to detect in high-density tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The size of ductal tumours is best predicted with US2 and CI2, while for lobular cancers RTE is best. Hyperechoic tumour surroundings should be included in US and CI measurements and RTE used as an additional technique in the clinical staging process.
Authors: Peter A Fasching; Katharina Heusinger; Christian R Loehberg; Evelyn Wenkel; Michael P Lux; Michael Schrauder; Thomas Koscheck; Werner Bautz; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Matthias W Beckmann; Mayada R Bani Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2006-10-09 Impact factor: 3.528
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: I Fredriksson; G Liljegren; M Palm-Sjövall; L-G Arnesson; S O Emdin; T Fornander; A Lindgren; H Nordgren; I Idvall; M Holmqvist; L Holmberg; J Frisell Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Benoît Mesurolle; Tarek Helou; Mona El-Khoury; Michael Edwardes; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ellen Kao Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Andy Evans; Yee Ting Sim; Celine Pourreyron; Alastair Thompson; Lee Jordan; Dawn Fleming; Colin Purdie; Jane Macaskill; Sarah Vinnicombe; Paul Pharoah Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Andy Evans; Yee Ting Sim; Brooke Lawson; Jane Macaskill; Lee Jordan; Alastair Thompson Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Peter A Fasching; Sebastian M Jud; Maik Hauschild; Sherko Kümmel; Martin Schütte; Matthias Warm; Volker Hanf; Dieter Grab; Jutta Krocker; Elmar Stickeler; Rolf Kreienberg; Thomas Müller; Thorsten Kühn; Christopher Wolf; Steffen Kahlert; Stefan Paepke; Michael Berghorn; Mathias Muth; Monika Baier; Birgit Wackwitz; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael P Lux Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Anna Bozzini; Luca Nicosia; Giancarlo Pruneri; Patrick Maisonneuve; Lorenza Meneghetti; Giuseppe Renne; Andrea Vingiani; Enrico Cassano; Mauro Giuseppe Mastropasqua Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kyung Hee Ko; Hae Kyoung Jung; Ah Young Park; Ji Eun Koh; Hyunkyung Jang; Yunju Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 1.817