831 Correlation of breast cancer tumor size by magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography and mammography according to menopausal status

Paramount to staging and patient management is accurately measuring the size of invasive breast cancers. We assessed the accuracy of mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at our community-based hospital in which multiple radiologists and imaging machines are used in the care of our patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 277 patients seen at our breast center from 2009 to 2010. We tabulated MG, US, and MRI-reported tumor sizes in 161 women with pathology-proven invasive breast cancer and compared the preoperative size measurements with final pathologic tumor size. In the 161 patients, 169 lesions were identified. Imaging using all three modalities was available in 47 patients. When compared with final pathology, MRI had a correlation of r = 0.75 to mean tumor size as compared with US (r = 0.67) and MG (r = 0.76). Mean tumor size was 1.90 cm by MG, 1.87 cm by US, 2.40 cm by MRI, and 2.19 cm by pathology. We were able to achieve an excellent correlation of pathologic tumor size to preoperative imaging. The absolute differences in size between the modalities were small. MRI, in select patients, added to the assessment of tumor size based on US and MG.

Download Full-text

Correlation Between Mammographic Breast Density, Breast Tissue Type in Ultrasonography, Fibroglandular Tissue, and Background Parenchymal Enhancement in Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Breast Cancer Basic and Clinical Research ◽

10.1177/1178223418771971 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

pp. 117822341877197 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Afsaneh Alikhassi ◽

Seyedeh Nooshin Miratashi Yazdi ◽

Hedieh Akbari ◽

Sona Akbari Kia ◽

Masoud Baikpour

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Breast Density ◽

Menopausal Status ◽

Mammographic Breast Density ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Imaging Studies ◽

Background Parenchymal Enhancement ◽

Parenchymal Enhancement

Objective: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in the female population, and imaging studies play a critical role for its early detection. Mammographic breast density (MBD) is one of the markers used to predict the risk stratification of breast cancer in patients. We aimed to assess the correlations among MBD, ultrasound breast composition (USBC), fibroglandular tissue (FGT), and the amount of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) in magnetic resonance imaging, after considering the subjects’ menopausal status. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, the medical records’ archives in a tertiary referral hospital were reviewed. Data including age, menopausal status, their mammograms, and ultrasound assessments were extracted from their records. All of their imaging studies were reviewed, and MBD, USBC, FGT, and BPE were determined, recorded, and entered into SPSS software for analysis. Results: A total of 121 women (mean age = 42.7 ± 11.0 years) were included, of which 35 out of 115 (30.4%) had reached menopause. Using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test for evaluating the trends among above mentioned 4 radiologic characteristics in the total sample population, a significant positive relation was found between each of these paired variables: (1) USBC-MBD ( P = .006), (2) FGT-MBD ( P = .001), (3) USBC-BPE ( P = .046), (4) USBC-FGT ( P = .036), and (5) BPE-FGT ( P < .001). These trends were not found to be significant among premenopausal subjects. Conclusions: Considering the trends between different measures of breast density in the 3 radiologic modalities, these factors can be used interchangeably in certain settings.

Download Full-text

The ability of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging to predict actual pathologic tumor size in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.

10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs-4018 ◽

2009 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

L Vallow ◽

S Mclaughlin ◽

S Hines ◽

M McDonough ◽

X Geiger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Tumor Size ◽

Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Preoperative Magnetic Resonance

Download Full-text

COMPLEMENTARY BREAST MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING FOR TUMOR SIZE ASSESSMENT AND SURGICAL PLANNING IN WOMEN WITH EARLY BREAST CANCER

10.26226/morressier.599bdc79d462b80296ca0847 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Florin Catalin Pop

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Early Breast Cancer ◽

Tumor Size ◽

Surgical Planning ◽

Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Breast Magnetic Resonance

Download Full-text

Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for prediction of residual tumor size in early breast cancer within the ADAPT subtrials

10.21203/rs.3.rs-51805/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Monika Graeser ◽

Simone Schrading ◽

Oleg Gluz ◽

Kevin Strobel ◽

Christopher Herzog ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Tumor Size ◽

Residual Tumor ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Predictive Values ◽

Cancer Subtypes ◽

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽

Imaging Performance

Abstract Background: Prediction of histological tumor size by post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated in different breast cancer subtypes.Methods: Imaging was performed after 12-week NAT in patients enrolled into three neoadjuvant WSG ADAPT subtrials. Imaging performance for prediction of tumor size was analyzed across increasing size ranges (≤10, ≤20 and ≤30 mm) and summarized using positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV).Results: 248 and 588 patients had MRI and ultrasound, respectively. Tumor size was over- or underestimated by <10 mm in 4.4% and 21.8% of patients by MRI and in 10.2% and 15.8% by ultrasound. Overall, PPV (correctly predicted tumor size ≤10, ≤20 or ≤30 mm) of MRI and ultrasound increased from 0.61 and 0.72 for ≤10 mm tumors to 0.88 and 0.96 for ≤30 mm tumors; NPV (correctly predicted tumor size >10, >20 or >30 mm) decreased from 0.89 and 0.74 to 0.69 and 0.22. Across all tumor size ranges, ultrasound demonstrated higher PPV than MRI in HR+/HER2+ tumors while both methods had a similarly low PPV in HR-/HER2- and HR-/HER2+ tumors. MRI had a higher NPV than ultrasound with the exception of HR-/HER2- tumors measuring ≤10 and ≤20 mm where both methods had similar NPV. Conclusions: Ultrasound is less likely than MRI to underestimate the size of HR+/HER2+ tumors while MRI is associated with a lower risk to overestimate the size of HR+/HER2+ and HR-/HER2+ tumors. These findings may help to select the most optimal imaging approach for planning surgery after NAT. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01815242 (registration March 21, 2013, NCT01817452 (registration March 25, 2013), NCT01779206 (registration January 30, 2013).

Download Full-text

Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound for prediction of residual tumor size in early breast cancer within the ADAPT subtrials

Breast Cancer Research ◽

10.1186/s13058-021-01413-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Monika Graeser ◽

Simone Schrading ◽

Oleg Gluz ◽

Kevin Strobel ◽

Christopher Herzog ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Tumor Size ◽

Residual Tumor ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Her2 Positive ◽

Predictive Values ◽

Link Type ◽

Her2 Breast Cancer

Abstract Background Prediction of histological tumor size by post-neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was evaluated in different breast cancer subtypes. Methods Imaging was performed after 12-week NAT in patients enrolled into three neoadjuvant WSG ADAPT subtrials. Imaging performance was analyzed for prediction of residual tumor measuring ≤10 mm and summarized using positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. Results A total of 248 and 588 patients had MRI and ultrasound, respectively. Tumor size was over- or underestimated by < 10 mm in 4.4% and 21.8% of patients by MRI and in 10.2% and 15.8% by ultrasound. Overall, NPV (proportion of correctly predicted tumor size ≤10 mm) of MRI and ultrasound was 0.92 and 0.83; PPV (correctly predicted tumor size > 10 mm) was 0.52 and 0.61. MRI demonstrated a higher NPV and lower PPV than ultrasound in hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive and in HR−/HER2+ tumors. Both methods had a comparable NPV and PPV in HR−/HER2− tumors. Conclusions In HR+/HER2+ and HR−/HER2+ breast cancer, MRI is less likely than ultrasound to underestimate while ultrasound is associated with a lower risk to overestimate tumor size. These findings may help to select the most optimal imaging approach for planning surgery after NAT. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01815242 (registered on March 21, 2013), NCT01817452 (registered on March 25, 2013), and NCT01779206 (registered on January 30, 2013).

Download Full-text