Literature DB >> 27612172

Predicting Breast Tumor Size for Pre-operative Planning: Which Imaging Modality is Best?

Brittany Katz1, Christina Raker2, David Edmonson1,3, Jennifer Gass1,3, Ashley Stuckey1,3, Tina Rizack1,3.   

Abstract

We sought to compare breast tumor size predicted by imaging modality to the actual pathologic size in order to determine which imaging modality is best at estimating tumor size. We identified 261 patients with biopsy-proven invasive ductal (IDC) and/or invasive lobular (ILC) carcinomas with documented tumor dimensions predicted by imaging and maximum dimensions determined by final pathology. Results of imaging-predicted dimension were correlated with final pathological size. Spearman correlations were calculated and compared by Zou's method and agreement was assessed by McNemar's test. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between correlations of pathologic size by ultrasound (r = 0.71) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (0.76). The correlations between MRI or ultrasound and pathologic size are significantly stronger than the correlations between mammography or clinical breast exam and pathologic size (p < 0.05). MRI and ultrasound are both strongly correlated with pathologic size overall and within grades in both IDC and ILC. The correlations between MRI or ultrasound and pathologic size are significantly better than the correlations between mammography or clinical breast exam and pathologic size (p < 0.05).
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  zzm321990MRIzzm321990; breast cancer; imaging; mammography; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27612172     DOI: 10.1111/tbj.12680

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  5 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions.

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

2.  Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) in assessing breast cancer size: A comparison with conventional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Rossano Girometti; Martina Zanotel; Viviana Londero; Anna Linda; Michele Lorenzon; Chiara Zuiani
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-10-10       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Contrast enhanced digital mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging for accurate measurement of the size of breast cancer.

Authors:  Inyoung Youn; SeonHyeong Choi; Yoon Jung Choi; Ju Hee Moon; Hee Jin Park; Soo-Youn Ham; Chan Heun Park; Eun Young Kim; Shin Ho Kook
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  Does preoperative MRI accurately stratify early-stage HER2 + breast cancer patients to upfront surgery vs neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

Authors:  Astrid Botty van den Bruele; Emanuela Ferraro; Varadan Sevilimedu; Molly P Hogan; Sidra Javed-Tayyab; Tiana Le; Monica N Fornier; Monica Morrow; Virgilio Sacchini
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 4.624

5.  Agreement between dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pathologic tumour size of breast cancer and analysis of the correlation with BI-RADS descriptors.

Authors:  Aysegul Akdogan Gemici; Ercan Inci
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.