Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size

Hieken, Tina J.; Harrison, Jacqueline; Herreros, José María Peinado; Velasco, Josè M.

doi:10.1016/s0002-9610(01)00726-7

Cited by 124 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are different ways to estimate tumour size, physical examination, mammography and ultra sonography are common methods, and many studies have indicated that measurement by ultrasonography is the most accurate way (9,19,20,21), e.g. Hieken TJ et.al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Assessment of Axillary Lymph Nodes and Tumor Size in Breast Cancer Compared with Histopathological Examination: A Population‐Based Analysis of 2,537 Women

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hieken TJ et.al. who showed in a study including 180 patients with invasive breast cancer that ultrasonography is more accurate than mammography in assessing breast cancer size (20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Assessment of Axillary Lymph Nodes and Tumor Size in Breast Cancer Compared with Histopathological Examination: A Population‐Based Analysis of 2,537 Women

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] These studies indicate that although magnetic resonance imaging is accurate at predicting pathologic tumor size, ultrasonography is more widely available, relatively faster and less expensive. For these reasons, ultrasound appears to be the most useful imaging modality for preoperative tumor assessment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies indicate that ultrasonography is a viable method for determining tumor size, but that actual tumor size is underestimated. 1,3,8,11,15 Published studies comparing ultrasonography and pathology measurement, with their corresponding Pearson's correlation coefficients are presented in Table 1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,3,8,13 Of these, one group examined only invasive lobular carcinomas 13 and another examined only invasive ductal carcinomas. 3 The remaining two studies 1,8 had limited numbers of invasive lobular carcinoma (6 and 9 respectively), compromising the ability to draw conclusions regarding the influence of histologic subtype. The current study was undertaken to further investigate the influence histology exerts on assessment of preoperative tumor size determined by ultrasound.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishing an accurate primary invasive breast cancer size is crucial for patient management. Although ultrasonographic measurement is reported to correlate reliably with the gold standard pathology measurement, few authors have examined the influence of histologic subtype on ultrasound measurement. The common subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma, ductal and lobular, have different growth patterns, which may influence the ability of ultrasound to predict pathologic size. For this analysis, ultrasound and pathology reports were retrospectively reviewed for 204 women with 210 invasive breast cancers, including 129 ductal, 41 lobular, and 40 mixed pattern ductal and lobular carcinomas. For each tumor, the largest pathology and ultrasound dimensions were compared using Pearson's correlations, linear regression, paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests, stratified by histologic subtype. The Hodges-Lehmann approach was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median difference of the sizes. Ultrasonography consistently underestimated pathologic tumor size; the overall median difference was 3.5 mm (CI: 2.5-4.0 mm) and for subtypes: 2.5 mm (CI: 1.5-3.5 mm) for ductal pattern; 3.0 mm (CI: 1.5-4.5 mm) for mixed pattern; and in contrast, 7.5 mm (CI: 5.0-13.5 mm) for lobular pattern tumors. Significant correlations of similar magnitude, were observed between size measurements for ductal, lobular, and mixed subtypes (r ¼ 0.816, 0.811 and 0.672, respectively; all Po0.001); however, linear regression models differed between subtypes. Although practical and widely available, ultrasonography tends to underestimate pathologic tumor size. The size difference may be large for lobular carcinomas, potentially influencing stage; differences are less pronounced for ductal and mixed subtypes. Pathologic tumor size can be estimated from the ultrasonographic measurement, particularly if the histologic tumor subtype is known. The results of this study underscore the continued benefit of pretreatment tumor histology.

show abstract

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

Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size

Cited by 124 publications

References 16 publications

Clinical Assessment of Axillary Lymph Nodes and Tumor Size in Breast Cancer Compared with Histopathological Examination: A Population‐Based Analysis of 2,537 Women

Clinical Assessment of Axillary Lymph Nodes and Tumor Size in Breast Cancer Compared with Histopathological Examination: A Population‐Based Analysis of 2,537 Women

Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About