BreastLight Apparatus Performance in Detection of Breast Masses Depends on Mass Size

  • Shiryazdi, Seyed Mostafa (General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Breast Disease Research Centre, Shahid Sadoughi Hospital) ;
  • Kargar, Saeed (General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Breast Disease Research Centre, Shahid Sadoughi Hospital) ;
  • Taheri-Nasaj, Hossein (Department of Surgery, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Neamatzadeh, Hossein (Human Molecular Genetics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences)
  • Published : 2015.03.04


Background: Accurate measurement of breast mass size is fundamental for treatment planning. We evaluated performance of BreastLight apparatus in detection breast of masses with this in mind. Materials and Methods: From July 2011 to September 2013, a total of 500 women referred to mammography unit in Yazd, Iran for screening were recruited to this study. Performance of BreastLight in detection breast masses regard their sizeing, measured with clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography and sonography, was assessed. Sonographic and mammography examinations were performed according to breast density among women in two groups of women younger (n=105) and older (n=395) than 30 years. Size correlations were performed using Spearman rho analysis. Differences between mass size as assessed with the different methods (mammography, sonography, and clinical examination) and the BreastLight detection were analyzed using $X^2$-trend test. Results: Performance of the BreastLight in detection of lesions smaller than or equal to 1 cm assessed by CBE, mammography and sonography was 4.4%,7.7% and 12.5% and for masses larger than 4 cm was 65%, 100% and 57.1%, respectively. The performance of BreastLight in detection was significantly increased with larger masses (p<0.001). Conclusions: We conclude that clinical measurement of breast cancer size is as accurate as that from mammography or ultrasound. Accuracy can be improved by the use of a simple formula of both clinical and mammographic measurements.


  1. Azizun-Nisa, Bhurgri Y, Raza F, Kayani N (2008). Comparison of ER, PR and HER-2/neu (C-erb B 2) reactivity pattern with histologic grade, tumor size and lymph node status in breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 9, 553-6.
  2. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al (1995). Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology, 197, 743-7.
  3. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, et al (2003). Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol, 48, 285-92.
  4. Bundred N, Levack P, Watmough DJ, Watmough JA (1986). Preliminary results using computerised tele-Diaphanography for the investigation of breast disease. Br J Hospital Med, 37, 70-1.
  5. Iwuchukwu O, Dordea M, Keaney N (2009).A clinical investigation to develop an evidence base for the use of Breastlight in examining the breast. Sunderland City Hospital.
  6. Fornage BD, Toubas O, Morel M (1987). Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer, 60, 765-71.<765::AID-CNCR2820600410>3.0.CO;2-5
  7. Fouladi N, Pourfarzi F, Mazaheri E, et al (2013). Beliefs and behaviors of breast cancer screening in women referring to health care centers in northwest Iran according to the champion health belief model scale. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6857-62.
  8. Finlayson CA, MacDermott TA (2000). Ultrasound can estimate the pathologic size of infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Arch Surg, 135, 158-9.
  9. Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM (2001). Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg, 182, 351-4.
  10. Pain JA, Ebbs SR, Hern RP, Lowe S, Bradbeer JW (1992). Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods. Eur J Surg Oncol, 18, 44-8.
  11. Parajuly SS, Lan PY, Yan L, Gang YZ, Lin L (2010). Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 11, 809-14.
  12. Shoma A, Moutamed A, Ameen M, Abdelwahab A (2006). Ultrasound for accurate measurement of invasive breast cancer tumor size. Breast J, 12, 252-6.
  13. Snelling JD, Abdullah N, Brown G, et al (2004). Measurement of tumour size in case selection for breast cancer therapy by clinical assessment and ultrasound. Eur J Surg Oncol, 30, 5-9.
  14. Sofi GN, Sofi JN, Nadeem R, et al (2012). Estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status in breast cancer in relation to age, histological grade, size of lesion and lymph node involvement. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 13, 5047-52.
  15. Tham TM, Iyengar KR, Taib NA, Yip CH (2009). Fine needle aspiration biopsy, core needle biopsy or excision biopsy to diagnose breast cancer-which is theideal method? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 155-8.
  16. Jiang YX, Liu H, Liu JB, et al (2007). Breast tumor size assessment: comparison of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol, 33, 1873-81.
  17. Labib NA, Ghobashi MM, Moneer MM, Helal MH, Abdalgaleel SA (2013). Evaluation of breastlight as a tool for early detection of breast lesions among females attending National cancerinstitute, cairo university. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 4647-50.
  18. Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al (2013). Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med, 118, 1119-36.
  19. Malich A, Sauner D, Marx C, et al (2003). Influence of breast lesion size and histologic findings on tumor detection rate of a computer-aided detection system. Radiology, 228, 851-6.
  20. Nguansangiam S, Jesdapatarakul S, Tangjitgamol S (2009). Accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology from breast masses in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 10, 623-6.

Cited by

  1. CYP2D6 Genotype and Risk of Recurrence in Tamoxifen Treated Breast Cancer Patients vol.16, pp.15, 2015,