BACKGROUND: The clinical assessment of axillary lymph nodes status and tumor size is important for the management of patients with breast cancer. The first goal of this study was to determine the accuracy of axillary lymph node status in relation to the presence of metastases as revealed by histopathological examination. The second goal was to compare the tumor size as assessed by physical examination, with the size obtained by histopathological examination. METHODS: This study was based on a consecutive series of 2,537 patients diagnosed with breast cancer in Malmö, Sweden, between 1987 and 2002. These patients had available information in the South Swedish Breast Cancer Group registry, corresponding to 97 %. The axillary lymph nodes status was compared with the results of the histopathological examination for the presence of metastases. Tumor size by physical examination was compared with the tumor size after histopathological examination. RESULTS: There were 674 women with axillary lymph nodes metastases according to histological examination; only 206 of these cases had palpable lymph nodes at clinical examination. The sensitivity was 30 % and the specificity 93 %. There were 812 tumors measured to be larger than 20 mm according to histopathological examination, but only 665 of these tumors were considered larger than 20 mm by clinical examination. This corresponded to a sensitivity of 81 % and a specificity of 80 %. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the possibility of axillary metastases estimated by clinical examination is subjected to a large proportion of false-positive and false-negative results. Similarly, tumor size estimated by clinical examination is subject to under- and overestimation in comparison to histopathological examination.
BACKGROUND: The clinical assessment of axillary lymph nodes status and tumor size is important for the management of patients with breast cancer. The first goal of this study was to determine the accuracy of axillary lymph node status in relation to the presence of metastases as revealed by histopathological examination. The second goal was to compare the tumor size as assessed by physical examination, with the size obtained by histopathological examination. METHODS: This study was based on a consecutive series of 2,537 patients diagnosed with breast cancer in Malmö, Sweden, between 1987 and 2002. These patients had available information in the South Swedish Breast Cancer Group registry, corresponding to 97 %. The axillary lymph nodes status was compared with the results of the histopathological examination for the presence of metastases. Tumor size by physical examination was compared with the tumor size after histopathological examination. RESULTS: There were 674 women with axillary lymph nodes metastases according to histological examination; only 206 of these cases had palpable lymph nodes at clinical examination. The sensitivity was 30 % and the specificity 93 %. There were 812 tumors measured to be larger than 20 mm according to histopathological examination, but only 665 of these tumors were considered larger than 20 mm by clinical examination. This corresponded to a sensitivity of 81 % and a specificity of 80 %. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the possibility of axillary metastases estimated by clinical examination is subjected to a large proportion of false-positive and false-negative results. Similarly, tumor size estimated by clinical examination is subject to under- and overestimation in comparison to histopathological examination.
Authors: K Heusinger; C Löhberg; M P Lux; T Papadopoulos; K Imhoff; R Schulz-Wendtland; M W Beckmann; P A Fasching Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: F D Schwab; H Burger; M Isenschmid; A Kuhn; M D Mueller; A R Günthert Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: A C Voogd; J W Coebergh; O J Repelaer van Driel; R M Roumen; M W van Beek; A Vreugdenhil; M A Crommelin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt; Karla V Ballman; Peter D Beitsch; Pat W Whitworth; Peter W Blumencranz; A Marilyn Leitch; Sukamal Saha; Linda M McCall; Monica Morrow Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Philip S Mullenix; Preston L Carter; Matthew J Martin; Scott R Steele; Charles L Scott; Michael J Walts; Alan L Beitler Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Lisa Rydén; Ida Skarping; Kristoffer Nilsson; Looket Dihge; Adam Fridhammar; Mattias Ohlsson; Linnea Huss; Pär-Ola Bendahl; Katarina Steen Carlsson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 4.624