BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of the size of breast cancers becomes more important as breast cancer therapy advances. This study reports the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography and mammography for measuring the largest breast cancer diameter in comparison to the pathology measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen breast cancers were examined in 13 women with MRI, ultrasonography and mammography. The age range was 31-73 (mean 56). Six of the cancers were in premenopausal women. The MRI was performed with the intravenous injection of gadolinium based contrast agent and a three dimensional fast spoiled gradient echo sequence with fat suppression. The largest cancer diameter was measured with each imaging technique and compared to the largest cancer diameter measured at pathology. RESULTS: At pathological examination cancers ranged from 0.6 to 6 cm (mean 2.2) in largest diameter. MRI measurements had the highest correlation coefficient (r = 0.98) and the smallest standard error (0.34). Ultrasonography measurements had a correlation coeffient of r = 0.45 and a standard error of 0.78. Mammography measurements had a correlation coefficient of r = 0.46 and a standard error of 1.04. CONCLUSIONS: MRI was more accurate than ultrasonography and mammography in measuring the largest cancer diameters in this group of women. This was particularly evident for several larger cancers, and a postchemotherapy cancer.
BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of the size of breast cancers becomes more important as breast cancer therapy advances. This study reports the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasonography and mammography for measuring the largest breast cancer diameter in comparison to the pathology measurement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen breast cancers were examined in 13 women with MRI, ultrasonography and mammography. The age range was 31-73 (mean 56). Six of the cancers were in premenopausal women. The MRI was performed with the intravenous injection of gadolinium based contrast agent and a three dimensional fast spoiled gradient echo sequence with fat suppression. The largest cancer diameter was measured with each imaging technique and compared to the largest cancer diameter measured at pathology. RESULTS: At pathological examination cancers ranged from 0.6 to 6 cm (mean 2.2) in largest diameter. MRI measurements had the highest correlation coefficient (r = 0.98) and the smallest standard error (0.34). Ultrasonography measurements had a correlation coeffient of r = 0.45 and a standard error of 0.78. Mammography measurements had a correlation coefficient of r = 0.46 and a standard error of 1.04. CONCLUSIONS: MRI was more accurate than ultrasonography and mammography in measuring the largest cancer diameters in this group of women. This was particularly evident for several larger cancers, and a postchemotherapy cancer.
Authors: S E Harms; D P Flamig; K L Hesley; M D Meiches; R A Jensen; W P Evans; D A Savino; R V Wells Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: I S Gribbestad; G Nilsen; H Fjøsne; R Fougner; O A Haugen; S B Petersen; P A Rinck; S Kvinnsland Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 1992 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Eline E Deurloo; William F A Klein Zeggelink; H Jelle Teertstra; Johannes L Peterse; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Sara H Muller; Harry Bartelink; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2005-11-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Anees B Chagpar; Lavinia P Middleton; Aysegul A Sahin; Peter Dempsey; Aman U Buzdar; Attiqa N Mirza; Fredrick C Ames; Gildy V Babiera; Barry W Feig; Kelly K Hunt; Henry M Kuerer; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Merrick I Ross; S Eva Singletary Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Martina Meier-Meitinger; Lothar Häberle; Peter A Fasching; Mayada R Bani; Katharina Heusinger; David Wachter; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael Uder; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Boris Adamietz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Seunghoon Ha; Mark J Hamamura; Werner W Roeck; James Hugg; Douglas J Wagenaar; Dirk Meier; Bradley E Patt; Orhan Nalcioglu Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 3.609