2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.07.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

8
89
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 102 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
8
89
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Limits within which measurements on MRI are considered concordant with measurements at pathology vary and range from 0 mm -20 mm [11,[24][25][26][27]. We used a limit of 10 mm to define concordance and Bland Altman plots to measure systematic and random differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Limits within which measurements on MRI are considered concordant with measurements at pathology vary and range from 0 mm -20 mm [11,[24][25][26][27]. We used a limit of 10 mm to define concordance and Bland Altman plots to measure systematic and random differences.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A review of the correlation between MRI-determined tumor size and pathologically determined tumor size is imperative. MRI tumor size correlates with pathologically determined size; however, significant overestimation occurs in cases where both invasive and non-invasive tumors are present (42). In our study, tumor staging on final pathology was associated with re-excision (p = 0.045).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…This finding is consistent with prior studies (Table 1). 1,3,6,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Tumour size measured by micro-CT correlated better with histopathological invasive tumour size than any of the three pre-operative imaging modalities. This is likely because micro-CT generates higher resolution images, making fine structures, anatomic features and tumour boundaries more clearly visible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%