Hung-Wen Lai1,2,3,4, Dar-Ren Chen1,2,3, Yao-Chung Wu2,3, Chih-Jung Chen5,6,7, Chih-Wei Lee8, Shou-Jen Kuo2,3, Shou-Tung Chen9,10, Hwa-Koon Wu11. 1. Endoscopic and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Center, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 2. Division of General Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 3. Comprehensive Breast Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 4. School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Department of Surgical Pathology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 6. School of Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan. 7. Department of Medical Technology, Jen-Teh Junior College of Medicine, Nursing and Management, Miaoli, Taiwan. 8. Department of Radiology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 9. Division of General Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 1886@cch.org.tw. 10. Comprehensive Breast Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 1886@cch.org.tw. 11. Department of Radiology, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan. 17597@cch.org.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to effectively treat patients with breast cancer, it is important to know the precise tumor size. We compared the rates of concordance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived and sonography-derived breast cancer tumor size with histopathologically determined tumor size. METHODS: Accuracy of MRI and sonography in establishing tumor size was evaluated by comparing preoperative images with postoperative pathologic findings. The accuracy of MRI and sonography was graded as concordance, underestimation, or overestimation and was compared in different subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 682 patients comprised the study cohort. Mean tumor size was 3.64 ± 1.8 cm via MRI, 2.12 ± 1.0 cm via sonography, and 2.78 ± 1.7 cm via pathologic examination. The difference between breast sonography and MRI to pathologic tumor field size was -0.68 ± 1.4, and 0.85 ± 1.25 cm, respectively (P < 0.001). Sonography had a concordance rate of 54.3 %, an overestimated rate of 9.8 %, and an underestimated rate of 35.9 %. For MRI, the concordance rate was 44.1 %, the overestimated rate was 52.5 %, and the underestimated rate was 3.4 %. In subgroup analysis, breast MRI had a higher concordance rate in patients with T3 (>5 cm) lesions. When the results of MRI and sonography were considered together, the concordance rate increased from 54.3 to 62.2 %. CONCLUSION: MRI tends to overestimate the actual tumor size, while sonography frequently underestimates it. Combined sonography and MRI increases the accuracy of tumor size prediction.
BACKGROUND: In order to effectively treat patients with breast cancer, it is important to know the precise tumor size. We compared the rates of concordance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-derived and sonography-derived breast cancer tumor size with histopathologically determined tumor size. METHODS: Accuracy of MRI and sonography in establishing tumor size was evaluated by comparing preoperative images with postoperative pathologic findings. The accuracy of MRI and sonography was graded as concordance, underestimation, or overestimation and was compared in different subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 682 patients comprised the study cohort. Mean tumor size was 3.64 ± 1.8 cm via MRI, 2.12 ± 1.0 cm via sonography, and 2.78 ± 1.7 cm via pathologic examination. The difference between breast sonography and MRI to pathologic tumor field size was -0.68 ± 1.4, and 0.85 ± 1.25 cm, respectively (P < 0.001). Sonography had a concordance rate of 54.3 %, an overestimated rate of 9.8 %, and an underestimated rate of 35.9 %. For MRI, the concordance rate was 44.1 %, the overestimated rate was 52.5 %, and the underestimated rate was 3.4 %. In subgroup analysis, breast MRI had a higher concordance rate in patients with T3 (>5 cm) lesions. When the results of MRI and sonography were considered together, the concordance rate increased from 54.3 to 62.2 %. CONCLUSION: MRI tends to overestimate the actual tumor size, while sonography frequently underestimates it. Combined sonography and MRI increases the accuracy of tumor size prediction.
Authors: María Del Mar Travieso-Aja; Daniel Maldonado-Saluzzi; Pedro Naranjo-Santana; Claudia Fernández-Ruiz; Wilsa Severino-Rondón; Mario Rodríguez Rodríguez; Víctor Vega Benítez; Octavio Pérez-Luzardo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.469
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
Authors: Keegan K Hovis; Janie M Lee; Daniel S Hippe; Hannah Linden; Meghan R Flanagan; Mark R Kilgore; Janis Yee; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar Journal: J Breast Imaging Date: 2021-04-29