Which factors influence MRI-pathology concordance of tumour size measurements in breast cancer?

Rominger, Marga B.; Berg, David J. Van Den; Frauenfelder, Thomas; Ramaswamy, Annette; Timmesfeld, Nina

doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3935-5

Cited by 37 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our sample population MRI overestimated the pathology size in 24% of the cases, which is consistent with the literature, ranging from 6% to 81% [2,10]. However, it should be remembered that for TNM classification, pathologists consider just the invasive component size of the tumor, while it is well established that MRI measurement includes both invasive and noninvasive components [5,11,12].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Recent studies have suggested that MRI is superior to mammography and ultrasound in determining invasive tumor size, depicting multifocality, as well as evaluating the intraductal component [1][2][3][4][5]9] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These authors also showed that the median overestimation in the patients who had IDC with extensive intraductal component was significantly higher than that of the patients who had IDC without extensive intraductal component [14]. Rominger et al found that nonmass enhancement, which is commonly associated with DCIS, significantly predicted MRI-pathology discordance on tumor size [5]. Jethava et al found that several factors affect the accuracy of MRI in the preoperative assessment of tumor size [15].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The size of the main tumor measured by MRI was compared to the tumor size described in the pathology report and defined as the greatest diameter of the invasive breast carcinoma (gold standard). Agreement between MRI and pathology results was defined as a greater diameter difference of less than 10 mm, as used in prior studies [5]. Pathology of all discordant cases was reviewed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, it is important to mention that tumor measurement on MRI may include both the invasive and non invasive components. In contrast, the pathologic examination of tumor size according to the TNM staging system is defined by the greatest diameter of the invasive breast carcinoma and DCIS extent is not taken into consideration [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Tumor size assessment of invasive breast cancers: which pathological features affect MRI-pathology agreement?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Preoperative assessment of tumor size is important in breast cancer treatment planning, especially in breast conservation surgeries. The use of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is increasing among patients with newly diagnosed breast cancers. However, some pathological features can overestimate the measurement of tumor size by MRI, increasing mastectomy rates. The objective is to evaluate which pathological features may affect the agreement between MRI and pathologic tumor size on invasive breast carcinomas. Methods: Eighty seven patients with breast cancer who underwent preoperative breast MRI were retrospectively evaluated. The main tumor size measured by MRI was compared with pathology (gold standard) and concordance was defined as a greater diameter difference of less than 10 mm. Results: There was MRI-pathology concordance in 60 cases (69.0%), MRI overestimated tumor size in 21 (24.1%) and underestimated in 6 (6.9%). After multivariate analysis, only associated ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) remained significantly related to overestimation of tumor size on MRI (OR: 9.00; 95% IC:1.13-71.87; p = 0.038). Conclusion: There was good correlation between tumor size evaluation on MRI and pathology. The presence of associated DCIS was the only pathological parameter associated with size overestimation on MRI.

show abstract