M Rominger1, D Berg2, T Frauenfelder3, A Ramaswamy4, N Timmesfeld5. 1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland. Marga.Rominger@usz.ch. 2. Anesthesiology, Urbankrankenhaus Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 3. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Pathology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany. 5. Institute for Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Philipps University Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess MRI-pathology concordance and factors influencing tumour size measurement in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI tumour size (greatest diameter in anatomical planes (MRI-In-Plane) and greatest diameter along main tumour axis (MRI-MPR)) of 115 consecutive breast lesions (59 invasive lobular carcinoma, 46 invasive ductal carcinoma, and 10 ductal carcinoma in situ) was retrospectively compared to size measured at histopathology (pT size (Path-TNM) and greatest tumour diameter as relevant for excision (Path-Diameter; reference standard)). Histopathological tumour types, preoperative palpability, surgical management, additional high-risk lesions, and BI-RADS lesion type (mass versus non-mass enhancements) were assessed as possible influencing factors. RESULTS: Systematic errors were most pronounced between MRI-MPR and Path-TNM (7.1 mm, limits of agreement (LoA) [-21.7; 35.9]), and were lowest between MRI-In-Plane and Path-Diameter (0.2 mm, LoA [-19.7; 20.1]). Concordance rate of MRI-In-Plane with Path-Diameter was 86% (97/113), overestimation 9% (10/113) and underestimation 5% (6/113); BI-RADS mass lesions were overestimated in 7% (6/81) versus 41% (13/32) for non-mass enhancements. On multivariate analysis only BI-RADS lesion type significantly influenced MRI-pathology concordance (p < 0.001). 2/59 (3%) ILC did not enhance. CONCLUSION: Concordance rate varies according to the execution of MRI and histopathological measurements. Beyond this only non-mass enhancement significantly predicted discordance. KEY POINTS: • Execution and scope of MRI and histopathological size measurements influence concordance rate. • Non-mass like enhancement predicts discordance. • Additional high-risk lesions in proximity of tumour do not cause measurement discordance. • Low percentage of ILC do not enhance at all.
OBJECTIVES: To assess MRI-pathology concordance and factors influencing tumour size measurement in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRI tumour size (greatest diameter in anatomical planes (MRI-In-Plane) and greatest diameter along main tumour axis (MRI-MPR)) of 115 consecutive breast lesions (59 invasive lobular carcinoma, 46 invasive ductal carcinoma, and 10 ductal carcinoma in situ) was retrospectively compared to size measured at histopathology (pT size (Path-TNM) and greatest tumour diameter as relevant for excision (Path-Diameter; reference standard)). Histopathological tumour types, preoperative palpability, surgical management, additional high-risk lesions, and BI-RADS lesion type (mass versus non-mass enhancements) were assessed as possible influencing factors. RESULTS: Systematic errors were most pronounced between MRI-MPR and Path-TNM (7.1 mm, limits of agreement (LoA) [-21.7; 35.9]), and were lowest between MRI-In-Plane and Path-Diameter (0.2 mm, LoA [-19.7; 20.1]). Concordance rate of MRI-In-Plane with Path-Diameter was 86% (97/113), overestimation 9% (10/113) and underestimation 5% (6/113); BI-RADS mass lesions were overestimated in 7% (6/81) versus 41% (13/32) for non-mass enhancements. On multivariate analysis only BI-RADS lesion type significantly influenced MRI-pathology concordance (p < 0.001). 2/59 (3%) ILC did not enhance. CONCLUSION: Concordance rate varies according to the execution of MRI and histopathological measurements. Beyond this only non-mass enhancement significantly predicted discordance. KEY POINTS: • Execution and scope of MRI and histopathological size measurements influence concordance rate. • Non-mass like enhancement predicts discordance. • Additional high-risk lesions in proximity of tumour do not cause measurement discordance. • Low percentage of ILC do not enhance at all.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Carcinoma ductal breast; Carcinoma lobular; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pathology clinical
Authors: Carla Boetes; Jeroen Veltman; Lya van Die; Peter Bult; Theo Wobbes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nicole M A Krekel; Henk Jan van Slooten; Ellis Barbé; Elly S M de Lange de Klerk; Sybren Meijer; M Petrousjka van den Tol Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: G N Rodenko; S E Harms; J M Pruneda; R S Farrell; W P Evans; D S Copit; P A Krakos; D P Flamig Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tibor Tot; Mária Gere; Gyula Pekár; Miklós Tarján; Syster Hofmeyer; Dan Hellberg; David Lindquist; Tony Hsiu-His Chen; Amy Ming-Fang Yen; Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu; László Tabár Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: R M Mann; P Bult; H W M van Laarhoven; P N Span; M Schlooz; J Veltman; N Hoogerbrugge Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-04-06 Impact factor: 3.528
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: Santo Maimone; Andrey P Morozov; Zhuo Li; Emily C Craver; Erin A Elder; Sarah A McLaughlin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ricardo Roque; Mariana Robalo Cordeiro; Mónica Armas; Francisco Caramelo; Filipe Caseiro-Alves; Margarida Figueiredo-Dias Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2022-06-29