Background:To compare breast volume measurement techniques in terms of accuracy, convenience, and cost.Methods:Breast volumes of 30 patients who were scheduled to undergo total mastectomy surgery were measured preoperatively by using five different methods (mammography, anatomic [anthropometric], thermoplastic casting, the Archimedes procedure, and the Grossman-Roudner device). Specimen volume after total mastectomy was measured in each patient with the water displacement method (Archimedes). The results were compared statistically with the values obtained by the five different methods.Results:The mean mastectomy specimen volume was 623.5 (range 150–1490) mL. The breast volume values were established to be 615.7 mL (r = 0.997) with the mammographic method, 645.4 mL (r = 0.975) with the anthropometric method, 565.8 mL (r = 0.934) with the Grossman-Roudner device, 583.2 mL (r = 0.989) with the Archimedes procedure, and 544.7 mL (r = 0.94) with the casting technique. Examination of r values revealed that the most accurate method was mammography for all volume ranges, followed by the Archimedes method.Conclusion:The present study demonstrated that the most accurate method of breast volume measurement is mammography, followed by the Archimedes method. However, when patient comfort, ease of application, and cost were taken into consideration, the Grossman-Roudner device and anatomic measurement were relatively less expensive, and easier methods with an acceptable degree of accuracy.
Early stage breast cancer is a chronic disease and patients have to live with the consequences of their decision for many years. At the same time, the type of surgery is decided on when patients are in an acute phase and under intense pressure. Therefore, the decision making process needs to be explored more, especially breast cancer patients with less education and low income need better assistance and more detailed explanation of their options.
AIMThe aim of this study was to investigate the criteria for determining the cancer risk of the breast asymmetry by comparing breast volume asymmetry levels between healthy women and women with cancer.MATERIALS AND METHODSTwo hundred and one women with breast cancer (group 1) were compared with 446 healthy women (group 2) who had no pathologic findings in breast sonography and mammograpy repeated with one-year interval. Data were evaluated retrospectively. Each breast volume was measured twice by Grossman-Roudner Discs. The mean value has been recorded. The amounts of volume difference between two breasts (asymmetry value) and the rates of the volume difference to the breast volume of the smaller side (asymmetry ratio) were compared in both groups.RESULTSThere was a statistically significant difference between two groups with regard to average age and body mass index (P < 0.01). This significance was decreased but not disappeared, when the comparison was made within the 40–69 age group (P > 0.01). The rate of cases with asymmetry value over 50 mL was significantly higher in the cancer group (P = 0.029). Unfortunately, it disappeared in the 40–69 age group (P = 0.201). The breast volume asymmetry ratio over 20% was significantly higher in the cancer group both in all ages and in the 40–69 age group (P < 0.01). Odds ratio was 2.18 in the entire (all) series and 2.01 in the 40–69 age group. Moreover, there was no significant difference with regard to the rate of tumor location between the smaller or larger side of breast.CONCLUSIONOur data show that there is a positive correlation between breast asymmetry ratio over 20% and breast cancer risk. These results need to be confirmed by prospective randomized controlled trials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.