Literature DB >> 26998296

Comparison of mammography and ultrasound in detecting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy in breast cancer patients.

Xiufeng Wu1, Qingzhong Lin1, Jianping Lu2, Gang Chen2, Y I Zeng1, Yinglan Lin1, Ying Chen3, Yaoqin Wang4, Jun Yan5.   

Abstract

Surgical biopsy is a method for diagnosing breast cancer. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the relative accuracies of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) in predicting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy. Each prediction method was compared with the gold standard of surgical pathology. The results of MMG and US from 312 consecutive breast cancer patients diagnosed by surgical excision were analyzed. All the patients underwent re-excision mastectomy or lumpectomy and the imaging results were compared with the histopathological findings. The accuracy and sensitivity of each modality were investigated. A total of 312 patients with 312 primary breast cancers were investigated. Residual disease was identified in 118 patients. Of the 118 cases with residual disease, MMG and US were able to detect 77 (65.3%) and 32 (27.1%), respectively (chi-square P<0.001). MMG was also more sensitive compared with US in estimating residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (94.2 vs. 33.3%, respectively; P<0.001). MMG was more accurate compared with US in detecting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy and the diagnostic accuracy of MMG was associated with the presence of residual DCIS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; lumpectomy; mammography; residual disease; ultrasound

Year:  2016        PMID: 26998296      PMCID: PMC4774526          DOI: 10.3892/mco.2016.729

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol        ISSN: 2049-9450


  30 in total

1.  Diagnostic discrepancies in breast specimens subjected to gross reexamination.

Authors:  E L Wiley; P Keh
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Effect of time interval on residual disease in breast cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Wiley; Leslie K Diaz; Sunil Badve; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Challenges in the interpretation of breast core biopsies.

Authors:  Adriana D Corben; Marcia Edelweiss; Edi Brogi
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Preoperative assessment of small tumours in women with breast cancer.

Authors:  B A Kald; P Boiesen; K Ronnow; P E Jonsson; T Bisgaard
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.360

5.  Pathologic findings on re-excision of the primary site in breast cancer patients considered for treatment by primary radiation therapy.

Authors:  S J Schnitt; J L Connolly; U Khettry; G Mazoujian; M Brenner; B Silver; A Recht; G Beadle; J R Harris
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1987-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  The consequence of multiple re-excisions to obtain clear lumpectomy margins in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Tehillah S Menes; Paul Ian Tartter; Ira Bleiweiss; James H Godbold; Alison Estabrook; Sharon Rosenbaum Smith
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer.

Authors:  W T Yang; W W Lam; H Cheung; M Suen; W W King; C Metreweli
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.153

8.  Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation: long-term outcome and prognostic significance of patient age and margin status.

Authors:  L J Solin; A Fourquet; F A Vicini; B Haffty; M Taylor; B McCormick; M McNeese; L J Pierce; C Landmann; I A Olivotto; J Borger; J Kim; A de la Rochefordiere; D J Schultz
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2001-07-15       Impact factor: 7.038

9.  Prediction of breast cancer size by ultrasound, mammography and core biopsy.

Authors:  M Golshan; B B Fung; E Wiley; J Wolfman; A Rademaker; M Morrow
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 10.  Breast cancer in China.

Authors:  Lei Fan; Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Jun-Jie Li; Jessica St Louis; Dianne M Finkelstein; Ke-Da Yu; Wan-Qing Chen; Zhi-Ming Shao; Paul E Goss
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 41.316

View more
  4 in total

1.  The use of sequential X-ray, CT and MRI in the preoperative evaluation of breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Huiyu Zhang; Hongna Tan; Jianbo Gao; Yan Wei; Zhan Yu; Yan Zhou
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 2.447

2.  Synergy in combining findings from mammography and ultrasonography in detecting malignancy in women with higher density breasts and lesions over 2 cm in Albania.

Authors:  Altin Malaj; Albana Shahini
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2017-01-12

3.  A Cross-Sectional Observational Study to Compare the Role of Ultrasound with Mammography in Women Identified at High Risk for Breast Cancer in a Population in China.

Authors:  Peili An; Shujuan Zhong; Rong Zhang; Xiaoxia Hou; Ruru Xi; Yingjin Wang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2020-06-24

4.  Comparative study of ultrasonic elastography and conventional ultrasound in diagnosis of malignant anus neoplasm.

Authors:  Yicheng Zhu; Shuhao Deng; Yuan Zhang; Quan Jiang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 2.447

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.