OBJECTIVES: Micro-CT is a promising modality to determine breast tumour size in three dimensions in intact lumpectomy specimens. We compared the accuracy of tumour size measurements using specimen micro-CT with measurements using multimodality pre-operative imaging. METHODS: A tabletop micro-CT was used to image breast lumpectomy specimens. The largest tumour dimension on three-dimensional reconstructed micro-CT images of the specimen was compared with the measurements determined by pre-operative mammography, ultrasound and MRI. The largest dimension of pathologic invasive cancer size was used as the gold standard reference to assess the accuracy of imaging assessments. RESULTS: 50 invasive breast cancer specimens in 50 patients had micro-CT imaging. 42 were invasive ductal carcinoma, 6 were invasive lobular carcinoma and 2 were other invasive cancer. Median patient age was 63 years (range 33-82 years). When compared with the largest pathologic tumour dimension, micro-CT measurements had the best correlation coefficient (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) followed by MRI (r = 0.78, p < 0.001), ultrasound (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and mammography (r = 0.40, p < 0.01). When compared with pre-operative modalities, micro-CT had the best correlation coefficient (r = 0.86, p < 0.001) with MRI, followed by ultrasound (r = 0.60, p < 0.001) and mammography (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). Overall, mammography and ultrasound tended to underestimate the largest tumour dimension, while MRI and micro-CT overestimated the largest tumour dimension more frequently. CONCLUSION: Micro-CT is a potentially useful tool for accurate assessment of tumour dimensions within a lumpectomy specimen. Future studies need to be carried out to see if this technology could have a role in margin assessment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Micro-CT is a promising new technique which could potentially be used for rapid assessment of breast cancer dimensions in an intact lumpectomy specimen in order to guide surgical excision.
OBJECTIVES: Micro-CT is a promising modality to determine breast tumour size in three dimensions in intact lumpectomy specimens. We compared the accuracy of tumour size measurements using specimen micro-CT with measurements using multimodality pre-operative imaging. METHODS: A tabletop micro-CT was used to image breast lumpectomy specimens. The largest tumour dimension on three-dimensional reconstructed micro-CT images of the specimen was compared with the measurements determined by pre-operative mammography, ultrasound and MRI. The largest dimension of pathologic invasive cancer size was used as the gold standard reference to assess the accuracy of imaging assessments. RESULTS: 50 invasive breast cancer specimens in 50 patients had micro-CT imaging. 42 were invasive ductal carcinoma, 6 were invasive lobular carcinoma and 2 were other invasive cancer. Median patient age was 63 years (range 33-82 years). When compared with the largest pathologic tumour dimension, micro-CT measurements had the best correlation coefficient (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) followed by MRI (r = 0.78, p < 0.001), ultrasound (r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and mammography (r = 0.40, p < 0.01). When compared with pre-operative modalities, micro-CT had the best correlation coefficient (r = 0.86, p < 0.001) with MRI, followed by ultrasound (r = 0.60, p < 0.001) and mammography (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). Overall, mammography and ultrasound tended to underestimate the largest tumour dimension, while MRI and micro-CT overestimated the largest tumour dimension more frequently. CONCLUSION: Micro-CT is a potentially useful tool for accurate assessment of tumour dimensions within a lumpectomy specimen. Future studies need to be carried out to see if this technology could have a role in margin assessment. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Micro-CT is a promising new technique which could potentially be used for rapid assessment of breast cancer dimensions in an intact lumpectomy specimen in order to guide surgical excision.
Authors: Rong Tang; Suzanne B Coopey; Julliette M Buckley; Owen P Aftreth; Leopoldo J Fernandez; Elena F Brachtel; James S Michaelson; Michele A Gadd; Michelle C Specht; Frederick C Koerner; Barbara L Smith Journal: Breast J Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Sarah Ines Ramirez; Max Scholle; Jennifer Buckmaster; Robert Hunter Paley; Gopal Chandru Kowdley Journal: Am Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Ines V Gruber; Miriam Rueckert; Karl O Kagan; Annette Staebler; Katja C Siegmann; Andreas Hartkopf; Diethelm Wallwiener; Markus Hahn Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: J Ciaran Hutchinson; Susan C Shelmerdine; Ian C Simcock; Neil J Sebire; Owen J Arthurs Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Barbara L Smith; Michele A Gadd; Conor R Lanahan; Upahvan Rai; Rong Tang; Travis Rice-Stitt; Andrea L Merrill; David B Strasfeld; Jorge M Ferrer; Elena F Brachtel; Michelle C Specht Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: David M McClatchy; Elizabeth J Rizzo; Jeff Meganck; Josh Kempner; Jared Vicory; Wendy A Wells; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Michael A Pinkert; Lonie R Salkowski; Patricia J Keely; Timothy J Hall; Walter F Block; Kevin W Eliceiri Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Samuel S Streeter; Benjamin W Maloney; Rebecca A Zuurbier; Wendy A Wells; Richard J Barth; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.174
Authors: David M McClatchy; Rebecca A Zuurbier; Wendy A Wells; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 4.872