Top

World Journal of Surgery

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2018 | Original Scientific Report

Breast and Tumour Volume Measurements in Breast Cancer Patients Using 3-D Automated Breast Volume Scanner Images

Authors: M. Lagendijk, E. L. Vos, K. P. Ramlakhan, C. Verhoef, A. H. J. Koning, W. van Lankeren, L. B. Koppert

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 7/2018

Abstract

Background

The resection volume in relation to the breast volume is known to influence cosmetic outcome following breast-conserving therapy. It was hypothesised that three-dimensional ultrasonography (3-D US) could be used to preoperatively assess breast and tumour volume and show high association with histopathological measurements.

Methods

Breast volume by the 3D-US was compared to the water displacement method (WDM), mastectomy specimen weight, 3-D MRI and three different calculations for breast volume on mammography. Tumour volume by the 3-D US was compared to the histopathological tumour volume and 3-D MRI. Relatedness was based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Bland–Altman plots were used to graphically display the agreement for the different assessment techniques. All measurements were performed by one observer.

Results

A total of 36 patients were included, 20 and 23 for the evaluation of breast and tumour volume (ductal invasive carcinomas), respectively. 3-D US breast volume showed ‘excellent’ association with WDM, ICC 0.92 [95% CI (0.80–0.97)]. 3-D US tumour volume showed a ‘excellent’ association with histopathological tumour volume, ICC 0.78 [95% CI (0.55–0.91)]. Bland–Altman plots showed an increased overestimation in lager tumour volumes measured by 3-D MRI compared to histopathological volume.

Conclusions

3-D US showed a high association with gold standard WDM for the preoperative assessment of breast volume and the histopathological measurement of tumour volume. 3-D US is an patient-friendly preoperative available technique to calculate both breast volume and tumour volume. Volume measurements are promising in outcome prediction of intended breast-conserving treatment.

Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P et al (2015) Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 16:47–56CrossRefPubMed

Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S et al (2015) Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173 797 patients. BMJ 351:h4901CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Atisha D, Rushing C, Samsa G et al (2015) A National snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures. Ann Surg Oncol 22:361–369CrossRefPubMed

Volders JH, Haloua MH, Krekel NM et al (2017) Intraoperative ultrasound guidance in breast-conserving surgery shows superiority in oncological outcome, long-term cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes: final outcomes of a randomized controlled trial (COBALT). Eur J Surg Oncol 43:649–657CrossRefPubMed

Vos EL, Koning AH, Obdeijn IM et al (2015) Preoperative prediction of cosmetic results in breast conserving surgery. J Surg Oncol 111:178–184CrossRefPubMed

Xi W, Perdanasari AT, Ong Y et al (2014) Objective breast volume, shape and surface area assessment: a systematic review of breast measurement methods. Aesthetic Plast Surg 38:1116–1130CrossRefPubMed

Bulstrode N, Bellamy E, Shrotria S (2001) Breast volume assessment: comparing five different techniques. The Breast 10(117–12):3

Kayar R, Civelek S, Cobanoglu M et al (2011) Five methods of breast volume measurement: a comparative study of measurements of specimen volume in 30 mastectomy cases. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 5:43–52

Yip JM, Mouratova N, Jeffery RM et al (2012) Accurate assessment of breast volume: a study comparing the volumetric gold standard (direct water displacement measurement of mastectomy specimen) with a 3D laser scanning technique. Ann Plast Surg 68:135–141CrossRefPubMed

10.

Losken A, Seify H, Denson DD et al (2005) Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg 54:471–476 (discussion 477–478) CrossRefPubMed

11.

Clauser P, Londero V, Como G et al (2014) Comparison between different imaging techniques in the evaluation of malignant breast lesions: Can 3D ultrasound be useful? Radiol Med 119:240–248CrossRefPubMed

12.

Krekel NMA, Zonderhuis BM, Stockmann HBAC et al (2011) A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. EJSO 37(109–11):5

13.

Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ et al (1995) Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31:753–764CrossRefPubMed

14.

Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A et al (2000) The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC ‘boost vs. no boost’ trial. Radiother Oncol 55:219–232CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson ARM et al (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90:1505–1509CrossRefPubMed

16.

Chan SW, Chueng PY, Lam SH (2010) Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg 34:1447–1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0278-x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Fung JK, Chan SW, Chiu AK et al (2010) Mammographic determination of breast volume by elliptical cone estimation. World J Surg 34:1442–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0283-0 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Kriege M, Boetes C et al (2005) Hereditary breast cancer growth rates and its impact on screening policy. Eur J Cancer 41:1610–1617CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U (2011) The automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases International. J Women’s Health 3:337–346

20.

Baken L, van Gruting IMA, Steegers EAP et al (2015) Design and validation of a 3D virtual reality desktop system for sonographic length and volume measurements in early pregnancy evaluation. J Clin Ultrasound 43:164–170CrossRefPubMed

21.

Verwoerd-Dikkeboom CM, Koning AH, Hop WC et al (2008) Reliability of three-dimensional sonographic measurements in early pregnancy using virtual reality. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:910–916CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kalbhen CL, McGill JJ, Fendley PM et al (1999) Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods. Am J Roentgenol 173:1643–1649CrossRef

23.

Katariya RN, Forrest AP, Gravelle IH (1974) Breast volumes in cancer of the breast. Br J Cancer 29:270–273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Cicchetti DV (1994) Guidelines criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess 6:284–290CrossRef

25.

Martins WP, Nastri CO (2014) Interpreting reproducibility results for ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 43:479–480CrossRefPubMed

26.

Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370(485–49):2

28.

Gruber IV, Rueckert M, Kagan KO et al (2013) Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer 13:328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Behjatnia B, Sim J, Bassett LW et al (2010) Does size matter? Comparison study between MRI, gross, and microscopic tumor sizes in breast cancer in lumpectomy specimens. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 3:303–309PubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Vriens BE, de Vries B, Lobbes MB et al (2016) Ultrasound is at least as good as magnetic resonance imaging in predicting tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 52:67–76CrossRefPubMed

Title: Breast and Tumour Volume Measurements in Breast Cancer Patients Using 3-D Automated Breast Volume Scanner Images
Authors: M. Lagendijk
E. L. Vos
K. P. Ramlakhan
C. Verhoef
A. H. J. Koning
W. van Lankeren
L. B. Koppert
Publication date: 01-07-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: World Journal of Surgery / Issue 7/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4432-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Breast and Tumour Volume Measurements in Breast Cancer Patients Using 3-D Automated Breast Volume Scanner Images

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2018

Transcutaneous Laryngeal Ultrasonography for Laryngeal Immobility Diagnosis in Patients with Voice Disorders After Thyroid/Parathyroid Surgery

Yonsei Experience of 5000 Gasless Transaxillary Robotic Thyroidectomies

Depression Induced by Total Mastectomy, Breast Conserving Surgery and Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Long-Lasting Voice-Related Symptoms in Patients Without Vocal Cord Palsy After Thyroidectomy

A Nomogram to Predict Prognosis in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

The Use of a Pre-operative Carbohydrate Drink in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective, Non-inferiority, Cohort Study