Brook K Byrd1, Venkataramanan Krishnaswamy2, Jiang Gui3, Timothy Rooney4, Rebecca Zuurbier4, Kari Rosenkranz5, Keith Paulsen1, Richard J Barth6. 1. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. 2. CairnSurgical, Inc., Lebanon, NH, USA. 3. Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 5. Section of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA. 6. Section of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH, 03756, USA. Richard.J.Barth.Jr@hitchcock.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about the three-dimensional shape of breast cancer. Implicit to approaches that localize the center of the tumor for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) of non-palpable cancers is the assumption that breast cancers are spherical about a central point, which may not be accurate. METHODS: Pre-operative supine breast MRI images were obtained of 83 breast cancer patients undergoing partial mastectomy using supine MRI-guided resection techniques. Three-dimensional (3D) tumor models were derived after radiologists outlined tumor edges on successive MRI slices. Ideal resection volumes were determined by adding 1 cm in every dimension to the actual tumor volume. Geometrically defined parameters were used to define tumor shapes and associations between clinical variables and shapes were examined. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients had invasive cancer. Breast cancers were categorized into four tumor shapes: 34% of tumors were discoidal, 29% segmental, 19% spherical, and 18% irregular. If hypothetical spherical excisions were performed, non-spherical cases would excise 143% more tissue than the ideal resection volume. When the 3D shape of each tumor was provided to the surgeon during MR-guided BCS, the percentage of tissue overexcised in non-spherical cases was significantly less (143% vs. 66%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Information obtained from a supine MRI can be used to generate 3D tumor models and rapidly classify breast tumor shapes. The vast majority of invasive cancers and DCIS are not spherical. Knowledge of tumor shape may allow surgeons to excise breast cancer more precisely.
PURPOSE: Little is known about the three-dimensional shape of breast cancer. Implicit to approaches that localize the center of the tumor for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) of non-palpable cancers is the assumption that breast cancers are spherical about a central point, which may not be accurate. METHODS: Pre-operative supine breast MRI images were obtained of 83 breast cancerpatients undergoing partial mastectomy using supine MRI-guided resection techniques. Three-dimensional (3D) tumor models were derived after radiologists outlined tumor edges on successive MRI slices. Ideal resection volumes were determined by adding 1 cm in every dimension to the actual tumor volume. Geometrically defined parameters were used to define tumor shapes and associations between clinical variables and shapes were examined. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients had invasive cancer. Breast cancers were categorized into four tumor shapes: 34% of tumors were discoidal, 29% segmental, 19% spherical, and 18% irregular. If hypothetical spherical excisions were performed, non-spherical cases would excise 143% more tissue than the ideal resection volume. When the 3D shape of each tumor was provided to the surgeon during MR-guided BCS, the percentage of tissue overexcised in non-spherical cases was significantly less (143% vs. 66%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Information obtained from a supine MRI can be used to generate 3D tumor models and rapidly classify breast tumor shapes. The vast majority of invasive cancers and DCIS are not spherical. Knowledge of tumor shape may allow surgeons to excise breast cancer more precisely.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast shape; Breast-conserving surgery; Lumpectomy; MRI; Supine
Authors: Shoko E Abe; Joshua S Hill; Yimei Han; Kendall Walsh; James T Symanowski; Lejla Hadzikadic-Gusic; Teresa Flippo-Morton; Terry Sarantou; Meghan Forster; Richard L White Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Elaine L Bearer; John S Lowengrub; Hermann B Frieboes; Yao-Li Chuang; Fang Jin; Steven M Wise; Mauro Ferrari; David B Agus; Vittorio Cristini Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: G M Clarke; C M B Holloway; J T Zubovits; S Nofech-Mozes; M Murray; K Liu; D Wang; A Kiss; M J Yaffe Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anees B Chagpar; Brigid K Killelea; Theodore N Tsangaris; Meghan Butler; Karen Stavris; Fangyong Li; Xiaopan Yao; Veerle Bossuyt; Malini Harigopal; Donald R Lannin; Lajos Pusztai; Nina R Horowitz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Richard J Barth; Venkataramanan Krishnaswamy; Keith D Paulsen; Timothy B Rooney; Wendy A Wells; Elizabeth Rizzo; Christina V Angeles; Jonathan D Marotti; Rebecca A Zuurbier; Candice C Black Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Winona L Richey; Jon S Heiselman; Ma Luo; Ingrid M Meszoely; Michael I Miga Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 3.421