Assessment of breast cancer size: Sonographic and pathologic correlation

Tresserra, F.; Feu, J.; Grases, Pedro; Navarro, Beatriz de Olaiz; Alegret, X; Fernández-Cid, A

doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0096(199911/12)27:9<485::aid-jcu1>3.3.co;2-3

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tumor size measured in greatest dimension was compared between the groups by using Student t -test analysis ( P <0.05). Furthermore, the percentage greatest tumor diameter as assessed by gray-scale ultrasound and CEUS was within 2 mm of pathologic tumor size, which is considered accurate [8] . The percentage of over- and underestimated tumor size for each modality was calculated using Fisher's exact test, with a P -value <0.05 considered to be significant.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of contrast-enhanced breast ultrasound for pre-operative tumor size assessment in patients diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim was to assess the feasibility and accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of the breast with SonoVue microbubbles for pre-operative size measurement of invasive breast carcinomas. Seven patients diagnosed with nine invasive breast carcinomas prospectively underwent gray-scale ultrasound and CEUS of the breast according to a standardized protocol. CEUS of the breast was performed by a Philips iU22 scanner equipped with a 48 MHz linear array transducer. We used a single dose of 2.4 ml SonoVue as contrast agent. Breast lesion morphology was scored according to the sonographic BI-RADS lexicon criteria and classified accordingly. The greatest tumor dimensions on gray-scale ultrasound and CEUS of the breast were finally compared with the greatest histopathologic tumor sizes. Gray-scale ultrasound underestimated the histopathologic tumor size in 6/9 cases (67%), whereas CEUS of the breast underestimated tumor size in only 3/9 (33%) cases. CEUS of the breast was significantly more accurate for tumor size assessment. Greatest tumor dimension as measured with gray-scale ultrasound of the breast was within 2 mm of the pathologic tumor size in only 2/9 cases (22%), whereas CEUS of the breast accurately assessed tumor size within 2 mm of pathologic tumor size in 6/9 (67%) of the cases (P50.05). CEUS of the breast proved to be a feasible and safe procedure. It is more accurate than gray-scale ultrasound of the breast for pre-operative size assessment of invasive ductal breast carcinomas.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of contrast-enhanced breast ultrasound for pre-operative tumor size assessment in patients diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Before surgery, tumour size is assessed routinely by mammography and ultrasonography, both of which are known to underestimate tumour size. The Sloane Project reviewed 2013 patients undergoing BCS for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and found that preoperative imaging underestimated the extent of disease in 59 per cent of patients requiring reoperation for involved margins.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association between underestimation of tumour size by imaging and incomplete excision in breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer

Dixon

Newlands

Dodds

et al. 2016

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…11,12,17,27,35,36 1596 Several studies reported that the most characteristic finding of an intraductal component on sonography is a hypoechoic or anechoic tubular structure extending from the tumor. 37,38 With this sonographic diagnostic feature, Akashi-Tanaka et al 10 reported that sonography had poor sensitivity of 35% compared with mammography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and Hata et al 12 also reported a low 20.6% sensitivity rate of sonography for detection of intraductal spreading. Using high-resolution sonography, Sundararajan et al 17 reported sensitivity of 57.1% and specificity of 84.2% in 46 patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…41 Discrepancies between mammographic and histopathologic size are also due to radiating spicules and indistinct margins of tumors. 38 Moreover, the maximum extent of a tumor containing an intraductal component cannot be measured exactly on mammography. In this study, mammographic measurement of lesion size in IDC with an intraductal component showed a weaker correlation (r = 0.69) than pure IDC (r = 0.80).…”

Section: A C Bmentioning

confidence: 99%