Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI—correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the best method in our center to measure preoperative tumor size in breast tumors, using as reference the tumor size in the postoperative surgical specimen. We compared physical examination vs. mammography vs. resonance vs. ultrasound. There are different studies in the literature with disparate results.Methods: This is a retrospective study. All the included patients have been studied by clinical examination performed by gynecologist or surgeon specialists in senology, and radiological tests (mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging). The correlation of mammary examination, ultrasound, mammography and resonance with pathological anatomy was studied using the Pearson index. Subsequently, the results of such imaging tests were compared with the tumor size of the infiltrating component measured by anatomopathological study using a student's t test for related variables. The level of significance was set at 95%. Statistical package R. was used.Results: A total of 73 cases were collected from October 2015 to July 2016 with diagnosis of infiltrating breast carcinoma. Twelve cases of carcinoma in situ and seven cases of neoadjuvant carcinoma are excluded.Finally, a total of 56 cases were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients is 57 years. The Conclusions: Ultrasonography is the best predictor of tumor size in breast cancer, compared with clinical examination, mammography, and resonance. Our work could help the decision-making process such as the type of conservative surgery, the possible need for oncoplastic surgery or the decision to start treatment with neoadjuvant therapy, in patients with unifocal tumors.

A Comparison Between Core Biopsy and Imaging Techniques (Ultrasound and Mammography) In diagnosis of Breast Cancer in Slemani Breast Center

“…In the current study, mean age / years for the participants was (mean age = 51.34 year ± 12.85 SD), which is consistent with a study was done in India [19] (mean age = 52.66), a study was done in South Korea [21] (mean age = 51.4 ±9.5 SD), a study was done in USA [22] (mean age = 52.39 ±10.3 SD), Our study is inconsistent with a study done in Puerto Rico [11] (mean age = 57 years), a study was done in Spain [23] (mean age = 57 years) , a study was done in Turkey [24] (mean age = 55 years) and a study was done in Canada [25] (mean age = 58.1 years).…”

Pentameric last‐digit preference and stage border avoidance in pathology measurement

“…Tumour size as determined by pathology is considered to be the most reliable measurement. Imaging studies in lung and breast cancer tend to give larger sizes than pathological measurement, albeit without the last‐digit preference for pentameric values . The size of a tumour is determined by several biological factors.…”

Accuracy of breast MRI in patients receiving neoadjuvant endocrine therapy: comprehensive imaging analysis and correlation with clinical and pathological assessments

“…Ultrasound has been revealed to be a better predictor for pathologic tumour size than mammography after treatment with neoadjuvant therapy. However, ultrasound is operator dependent, and its accuracy varies [2,5,6]. Mammography has been less specific than CE for detecting presence of residual tumour after therapy, and it adds challenges with mammographically occult tumours and microcalcifications which do not correlate with presence of viable tumours [2].…”