Factors affecting the concordance of radiologic and pathologic tumor size in breast carcinoma.
Breast carcinoma
breast ultrasound
concordance
pathologic staging
tumor size
Journal
Ultrasound (Leeds, England)
ISSN: 1742-271X
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101244122
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
01
03
2018
accepted:
08
09
2018
entrez:
19
2
2019
pubmed:
19
2
2019
medline:
19
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Radiologic assessment of tumor size is an integral part of the work-up for breast carcinoma. With improved radiologic equipment, surgical decision relies profoundly upon radiologic/clinical stage. We wanted to see the concordance between radiologic and pathologic tumor size to infer how accurate radiologic/clinical staging is. The surgical pathology and ultrasonography reports of patients with breast carcinoma were reviewed. Data were collected for 406 cases. Concordance was defined as a size difference within ±2 mm. The difference between radiologic and pathologic tumor size was within ±2 mm in 40.4% cases. The mean radiologic size was 1.73 ± 1.06 cm. The mean pathologic size was 1.84 ± 1.24 cm. A paired Mean pathologic tumor size was significantly different from mean radiologic tumor size. Concordance was in just over 40% of cases and the stage classification was the same in about 60% of cases only. Therefore, surgical decision of lumpectomy versus mastectomy based on radiologic tumor size may not always be accurate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Radiologic assessment of tumor size is an integral part of the work-up for breast carcinoma. With improved radiologic equipment, surgical decision relies profoundly upon radiologic/clinical stage. We wanted to see the concordance between radiologic and pathologic tumor size to infer how accurate radiologic/clinical staging is.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The surgical pathology and ultrasonography reports of patients with breast carcinoma were reviewed. Data were collected for 406 cases. Concordance was defined as a size difference within ±2 mm.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The difference between radiologic and pathologic tumor size was within ±2 mm in 40.4% cases. The mean radiologic size was 1.73 ± 1.06 cm. The mean pathologic size was 1.84 ± 1.24 cm. A paired
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Mean pathologic tumor size was significantly different from mean radiologic tumor size. Concordance was in just over 40% of cases and the stage classification was the same in about 60% of cases only. Therefore, surgical decision of lumpectomy versus mastectomy based on radiologic tumor size may not always be accurate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30774698
doi: 10.1177/1742271X18804278
pii: 10.1177_1742271X18804278
pmc: PMC6362536
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
45-54Références
Acta Radiol. 1999 Mar;40(2):169-75
pubmed: 10080729
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000 Mar;60(1):43-55
pubmed: 10845808
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001 Jun;13(6):868-75
pubmed: 11382946
Ann Surg Oncol. 2001 Jul;8(6):549-59
pubmed: 11456056
Am J Surg. 2001 Oct;182(4):351-4
pubmed: 11720669
Am J Clin Pathol. 2000 May;113(5 Suppl 1):S19-29
pubmed: 11993706
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Nov;179(5):1193-9
pubmed: 12388497
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1993 May 1;3(3):185-90
pubmed: 14533601
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Nov;181(5):1275-82
pubmed: 14573420
Eur J Radiol. 2003 Dec;48(3):285-92
pubmed: 14652148
Eur Radiol. 2004 Aug;14(8):1371-9
pubmed: 14986052
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004 Jun;85(3):211-8
pubmed: 15111758
Ann Surg Oncol. 2004 Aug;11(8):756-61
pubmed: 15289239
Eur J Radiol. 2005 Apr;54(1):55-61
pubmed: 15797293
Eur Radiol. 2005 Jun;15(6):1224-33
pubmed: 15906034
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2002 Jul 1;1(2):73-80
pubmed: 16082129
Breast J. 2006 Mar-Apr;12(2):130-7
pubmed: 16509837
J Surg Oncol. 2006 Sep 1;94(3):220-5
pubmed: 16900536
J Surg Oncol. 2007 Nov 1;96(6):474-80
pubmed: 17640031
Acta Oncol. 2007;46(7):996-1003
pubmed: 17851879
Br J Cancer. 2008 Jan 29;98(2):289-93
pubmed: 18219287
Ultrasound Q. 2008 Mar;24(1):31-8
pubmed: 18362530
Radiology. 2009 Mar;250(3):638-47
pubmed: 19244039
Am Surg. 2009 Oct;75(10):970-5
pubmed: 19886147
Virchows Arch. 2011 Feb;458(2):125-31
pubmed: 21046150
Ann Diagn Pathol. 2012 Jun;16(3):196-201
pubmed: 22225905
Am Surg. 2012 Apr;78(4):440-6
pubmed: 22472402
World J Surg Oncol. 2013 Jun 06;11:130
pubmed: 23741999
Adv Anat Pathol. 2014 Nov;21(6):420-32
pubmed: 25299311
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Nov;22(12):3816-23
pubmed: 25707494
Clin Imaging. 2016 Nov - Dec;40(6):1269-1273
pubmed: 27677056
Iran J Radiol. 2016 Jan 09;13(3):e28281
pubmed: 27853492
Br J Cancer. 2017 Mar 28;116(7):893-902
pubmed: 28208155
J Surg Oncol. 2017 Jun;115(8):924-931
pubmed: 28409837
Acta Radiol. 2018 Jan;59(1):50-57
pubmed: 28425758
Mymensingh Med J. 2017 Apr;26(2):223-229
pubmed: 28588154
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):2986-2995
pubmed: 29380033
Int J Surg Pathol. 2018 Aug;26(5):392-401
pubmed: 29390920
Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 May;25(5):1350-1356
pubmed: 29516362
Acad Radiol. 2018 Nov;25(11):1457-1470
pubmed: 29555568
Int J Surg Pathol. 2018 Sep;26(6):494-499
pubmed: 29569502
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jun;210(6):1376-1385
pubmed: 29708782
Acta Radiol. 2019 Jan;60(1):35-44
pubmed: 29742918
Cancer. 1987 Aug 15;60(4):765-71
pubmed: 3297295
Radiology. 1995 Jun;195(3):617-21
pubmed: 7753983
Radiology. 1996 Feb;198(2):333-40
pubmed: 8596827
Radiology. 1996 Mar;198(3):665-9
pubmed: 8628852
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;37(1):1-9
pubmed: 8750522
J Ultrasound Med. 1997 Dec;16(12):791-7
pubmed: 9401992
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Feb;172(2):313-7
pubmed: 9930774