Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Primary Breast Cancer Size by Mammography and Sonography

  • Wang, Jian-Tao (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Chang, Li-Ming (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Song, Xin (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Zhao, Li-Xin (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Li, Jun-Tao (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Zhang, Wei-Guo (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Ji, Ying-Bin (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Cai, Li-Na (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Di, Wei (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Yang, Xin-Yu (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
  • Published : 2014.12.18
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To compare tumor size by mammography and sonography and align with pathological results in primary breast cancer cases. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 95 primary breast cancer patients who underwent mammography and sonography from January 2011 to June 2012. The largest tumor diameter was chosen as sizing reference for each imaging modality. The measurements of mammography and sonography were considered concordant if they were within the measurement of pathological results ${\pm}0.5cm$. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for imaging results. Results: The range of the maximum diameter was 0.6cm-10.5cm and mean value was $3.81{\pm}2.04cm$ by pathological results, 0.7cm-12.4 cm and $3.99{\pm}2.19cm$ by mammography, and 0.9cm-11.0cm and $3.63{\pm}2.01cm$ by sonography, respectively. Sonography (R: 0.754), underestimated tumor size, but had a better correlation with pathological tumor size compared to mammography (R: 0.676), which overestimated tumor size. Conclusions: Sonography is superior to mammography in assessment of primary breast cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. Allen SA, Cunliffe WJ, Gray J, et al (2001) Pre-operative estimation of primary breast cancer size: a comparison of clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasound. Breast, 10, 299-305 https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2000.0255
  2. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00081-0
  3. Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, et al (1996) Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 37, 1-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01806626
  4. Del Barco S, Ciruelos E, Tusquets I, Ruiz M, Barnadas A (2013) SEOM clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of early breast cancer 2013. Clin Transl Oncol, 15, 1011-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-013-1084-3
  5. Dummin LJ, Cox M, Plant L (2007) Prediction of breast tumor size by mammography and sonography--A breast screen experience. Breast, 16, 38-46 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2006.04.003
  6. Fornage BD, Toubas O, Morel M (1987) Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer, 60, 765-71 https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19870815)60:4<765::AID-CNCR2820600410>3.0.CO;2-5
  7. Golshan M, Fung BB, Wiley E, et al (2004) Prediction of breast cancer size by ultrasound, mammography and core biopsy. Breast, 13, 265-71 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2004.05.005
  8. Gruber IV, Rueckert M, Kagan KO, et al (2013) Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer, 13, 328 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-328
  9. Heusinger K, Lohberg C, Lux MP, et al (2005) Assessment of breast cancer tumor size depends on method, histopathology and tumor size itself*. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 94, 17-23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-6653-x
  10. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00726-7
  11. Kantor O, Winchester DJ (2014) Breast conserving therapy for DCIS--does size matter? J Surg Oncol, 110, 75-81 https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23657
  12. Karellas A, Vedantham S (2008) Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade. Med Phys, 35, 4878-97 https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2986144
  13. 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-013-0941-z
  14. Madjar H, Ladner HA, Sauerbrei W, et al (1993) Preoperative staging of breast cancer by palpation, mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 3, 185-90 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1993.03030185.x
  15. Pons F, Duch J, Fuster D (2009) Breast cancer therapy: the role of PET-CT in decision making. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 53, 210-23
  16. Pritt B, Ashikaga T, Oppenheimer RG, Weaver DL (2004) Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements. Mod Pathol, 17, 905-10 https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800138
  17. Roder D, Zorbas H, Kollias J, et al (2013) Factors predictive of treatment by Australian breast surgeons of invasive female breast cancer by mastectomy rather than breast conserving surgery. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 539-45 https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.1.539
  18. Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, et al (2009) MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg, 75, 970-5
  19. Yang WT, Lam WW, Cheung H, et al (1997) Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med, 16, 791-7

Cited by

  1. Breast Cancer Diagnosis by Mammography in Kazakhstan - Staging Results of Breast Cancer with Double Reading vol.16, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.1.31
  2. Comparison of mammography and ultrasound in detecting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy in breast cancer patients vol.4, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.729
  3. Accuracy of tumor size measurement: comparison of B-mode ultrasound, strain elastography, and 2D and 3D shear wave elastography with histopathological lesion size pp.1600-0455, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185118787354