Published in:
01-06-2011 | Breast
Assessment of breast cancer tumour size using six different methods
Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2011
Login to get accessAbstract
Objectives
Tumour size estimates using mammography (MG), conventional ultrasound (US), compound imaging (CI) and real-time elastography (RTE) were compared with histopathological specimen sizes.
Methods
The largest diameters of 97 malignant breast lesions were measured. Two US and CI measurements were made: US1/CI1 (hypoechoic nucleus only) and US2/CI2 (hypoechoic nucleus plus hyperechoic halo). Measurements were compared with histopathological tumour sizes using linear regression and Bland–Altman plots.
Results
Size prediction was best with ultrasound (US/CI/RTE: R
2 0.31–0.36); mammography was poorer (R
2 = 0.19). The most accurate method was US2, while US1 and CI1 were poorest. Bland–Altman plots showed better size estimation with US2, CI2 and RTE, with low variation, while mammography showed greatest variability. Smaller tumours were better assessed than larger ones. CI2 and US2 performed best for ductal tumours and RTE for lobular cancers. Tumour size prediction accuracy did not correlate significantly with breast density, but on MG tumours were more difficult to detect in high-density tissue.
Conclusions
The size of ductal tumours is best predicted with US2 and CI2, while for lobular cancers RTE is best. Hyperechoic tumour surroundings should be included in US and CI measurements and RTE used as an additional technique in the clinical staging process.