Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer

Authors: Ines V Gruber, Miriam Rueckert, Karl O Kagan, Annette Staebler, Katja C Siegmann, Andreas Hartkopf, Diethelm Wallwiener, Markus Hahn

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Tumour size in breast cancer influences therapeutic decisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sizing of primary breast cancer using mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and thereby establish which imaging method most accurately corresponds with the size of the histological result.

Methods

Data from 121 patients with primary breast cancer were analysed in a retrospective study. The results were divided into the groups “ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)”, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) + ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)”, “invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)”, “invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC)” and “other tumours” (tubular, medullary, mucinous and papillary breast cancer). The largest tumour diameter was chosen as the sizing reference in each case. Bland-Altman analysis was used to determine to what extent the imaging tumour size correlated with the histopathological tumour sizes.

Results

Tumour size was found to be significantly underestimated with sonography, especially for the tumour groups IDC + DCIS, IDC and ILC. The greatest difference between sonographic sizing and actual histological tumour size was found with invasive lobular breast cancer. There was no significant difference between mammographic and histological sizing. MRI overestimated non-significantly the tumour size and is superior to the other imaging techniques in sizing of IDC + DCIS and ILC.

Conclusions

The histological subtype should be included in imaging interpretation for planning surgery in order to estimate the histological tumour size as accurately as possible.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference American College of Radiology (ACR): Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Altlas (BI-RADS Atlas). 2003, Reston, VA 20191, USA, 4 American College of Radiology (ACR): Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Altlas (BI-RADS Atlas). 2003, Reston, VA 20191, USA, 4
2.
go back to reference Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A, Watermann D, Frenz JP, Bader W, Schulz-Wendtland R, Degenhardt F: BIRADS-Analogue Degum Criteria for Findings in Breast Ultrasound – Consensus of the DEGUM Committee on Breast Ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med. 2006, 27: 374-379. 10.1055/s-2006-926943.CrossRef Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A, Watermann D, Frenz JP, Bader W, Schulz-Wendtland R, Degenhardt F: BIRADS-Analogue Degum Criteria for Findings in Breast Ultrasound – Consensus of the DEGUM Committee on Breast Ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med. 2006, 27: 374-379. 10.1055/s-2006-926943.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM: Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 2001, 182: 351-354. 10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00726-7.CrossRefPubMed Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM: Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 2001, 182: 351-354. 10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00726-7.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Shoma A, Moutamed A, Ameen M, Abdelwahab A: Ultrasound for accurate measurement of invasive breast cancer tumor size. Breast J. 2006, 12: 252-256. 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00249.x.CrossRefPubMed Shoma A, Moutamed A, Ameen M, Abdelwahab A: Ultrasound for accurate measurement of invasive breast cancer tumor size. Breast J. 2006, 12: 252-256. 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00249.x.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Rupa JD, Koster D, van Engelshoven JM, von Meyenfeldt MF: Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol. 2003, 48: 285-292. 10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00081-0.CrossRefPubMed Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Rupa JD, Koster D, van Engelshoven JM, von Meyenfeldt MF: Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol. 2003, 48: 285-292. 10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00081-0.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Onesti JK, Mangus BE, Helmer SD, Osland JS: Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements. Am J Surg. 2008, 196: 844-848. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.07.028. discussion 849–850CrossRefPubMed Onesti JK, Mangus BE, Helmer SD, Osland JS: Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements. Am J Surg. 2008, 196: 844-848. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.07.028. discussion 849–850CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF, Giuliano AE: MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg. 2009, 75: 970-975.PubMed Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF, Giuliano AE: MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg. 2009, 75: 970-975.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, Ganott MA, Klementaviciene J, McCarty KS, Tobon : Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996, 37: 1-9. 10.1007/BF01806626.CrossRefPubMed Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, Ganott MA, Klementaviciene J, McCarty KS, Tobon : Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996, 37: 1-9. 10.1007/BF01806626.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, Hendriks JH, Ruys : Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995, 197: 743-747.CrossRefPubMed Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, Hendriks JH, Ruys : Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995, 197: 743-747.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Pritt B, Ashikaga T, Oppenheimer RG, Weaver DL: Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements. Mod Pathol. 2004, 17: 905-910. 10.1038/modpathol.3800138.CrossRefPubMed Pritt B, Ashikaga T, Oppenheimer RG, Weaver DL: Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements. Mod Pathol. 2004, 17: 905-910. 10.1038/modpathol.3800138.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Skaane P, Skjorten F: Ultrasonographic evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma. Act Radiol. 1999, 40: 369-375. 10.3109/02841859909177749.CrossRef Skaane P, Skjorten F: Ultrasonographic evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma. Act Radiol. 1999, 40: 369-375. 10.3109/02841859909177749.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Rodenko GN, Harms SE, Pruneda JM, Farrell RS, Evans WP, Copit DS, Krakos PA, Flamig DP: MR imaging in the management before surgery of lobular carcinoma of the breast: correlation with pathology. Am J Roentgenol. 1996, 167: 1415-1419. 10.2214/ajr.167.6.8956569.CrossRef Rodenko GN, Harms SE, Pruneda JM, Farrell RS, Evans WP, Copit DS, Krakos PA, Flamig DP: MR imaging in the management before surgery of lobular carcinoma of the breast: correlation with pathology. Am J Roentgenol. 1996, 167: 1415-1419. 10.2214/ajr.167.6.8956569.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002, 225: 165-175. 10.1148/radiol.2251011667.CrossRefPubMed Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002, 225: 165-175. 10.1148/radiol.2251011667.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, Bazzocchi M, Fausto A, Simonetti G, Lattanzio V, Del Maschio A: Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004, 183: 1149-1157. 10.2214/ajr.183.4.1831149.CrossRefPubMed Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, Bazzocchi M, Fausto A, Simonetti G, Lattanzio V, Del Maschio A: Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004, 183: 1149-1157. 10.2214/ajr.183.4.1831149.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E: Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000, 92: 1081-1087. 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081.CrossRefPubMed Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E: Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000, 92: 1081-1087. 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Ikeda DM, Andersson I: Ductal carcinoma in situ: atypical mammographic appearances. Radiology. 1989, 172: 661-666.CrossRefPubMed Ikeda DM, Andersson I: Ductal carcinoma in situ: atypical mammographic appearances. Radiology. 1989, 172: 661-666.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW: Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology. 1989, 170: 411-415.CrossRefPubMed Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW: Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology. 1989, 170: 411-415.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Stomper PC, Margolin FR: Ductal carcinoma in situ: the mammographer’s perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994, 162: 585-591. 10.2214/ajr.162.3.8109501.CrossRefPubMed Stomper PC, Margolin FR: Ductal carcinoma in situ: the mammographer’s perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994, 162: 585-591. 10.2214/ajr.162.3.8109501.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Kopans DB, Meyer JE, Lindfers KK: Whole-breast US imaging: four-year follow-up. Radiology. 1985, 157: 505-507.CrossRefPubMed Kopans DB, Meyer JE, Lindfers KK: Whole-breast US imaging: four-year follow-up. Radiology. 1985, 157: 505-507.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Yang WT, Tse GM: Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004, 182: 101-110. 10.2214/ajr.182.1.1820101.CrossRefPubMed Yang WT, Tse GM: Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004, 182: 101-110. 10.2214/ajr.182.1.1820101.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL: Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003, 180: 941-948. 10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800941.CrossRefPubMed Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL: Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003, 180: 941-948. 10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800941.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Butler RS, Venta LA, Wiley EL, Ellis RL, Dempsey PJ, Rubin E: Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999, 172: 325-330. 10.2214/ajr.172.2.9930776.CrossRefPubMed Butler RS, Venta LA, Wiley EL, Ellis RL, Dempsey PJ, Rubin E: Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999, 172: 325-330. 10.2214/ajr.172.2.9930776.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Lenz S: Breast ultrasound in office gynecology--ten years of experience. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32 (Suppl 1): 3-7.CrossRef Lenz S: Breast ultrasound in office gynecology--ten years of experience. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32 (Suppl 1): 3-7.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Varga D, Woeckel A, Wagner J, Koretz K, Kreienberg R, Sauer G: Value of ultrasound in preoperative local staging in early breast cancer. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32: 387-392. 10.1055/s-0029-1245243.CrossRefPubMed Varga D, Woeckel A, Wagner J, Koretz K, Kreienberg R, Sauer G: Value of ultrasound in preoperative local staging in early breast cancer. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32: 387-392. 10.1055/s-0029-1245243.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Hansen L: Multivariate analysis of flow data in breast lesions and validation in a normal clinical setting. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32: 511-517. 10.1055/s-0029-1245800.CrossRefPubMed Madjar H, Sauerbrei W, Hansen L: Multivariate analysis of flow data in breast lesions and validation in a normal clinical setting. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32: 511-517. 10.1055/s-0029-1245800.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Ohlinger R, Frese H, Paepke S, Heyer H, Köhler G, Schwesinger G, Grunwald S: Ultrasonographic: compared to histologic sizing of benign and malignant breast Lesions. Geburtsh Frauenheilk. 2006, 66: 373-376. 10.1055/s-2006-924035.CrossRef Ohlinger R, Frese H, Paepke S, Heyer H, Köhler G, Schwesinger G, Grunwald S: Ultrasonographic: compared to histologic sizing of benign and malignant breast Lesions. Geburtsh Frauenheilk. 2006, 66: 373-376. 10.1055/s-2006-924035.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Isermann R, Grunwald S, Hatzung G, Könsgen-Mustea D, Behrndt PO, Geaid AA, Jäger B, Ohlinger R: Breast Lesion Sizing by B-Mode Imaging and sonoelastography in Comparison to Histopathological Sizing – a prospective study. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32: 21-26. 10.1055/s-0029-1245297.CrossRef Isermann R, Grunwald S, Hatzung G, Könsgen-Mustea D, Behrndt PO, Geaid AA, Jäger B, Ohlinger R: Breast Lesion Sizing by B-Mode Imaging and sonoelastography in Comparison to Histopathological Sizing – a prospective study. Ultraschall Med. 2011, 32: 21-26. 10.1055/s-0029-1245297.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Hahn M, Roessner L, Krainick-Strobel U, Gruber IV, Krämer B, Gall C, Siegmann KC, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO: Sonographic Criteria for the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions using Real-Time Spatial Compound Imaging in Combination with XRES Adaptive Image Processing. Ultraschall Med. 2012, 33: 270-274.CrossRefPubMed Hahn M, Roessner L, Krainick-Strobel U, Gruber IV, Krämer B, Gall C, Siegmann KC, Wallwiener D, Kagan KO: Sonographic Criteria for the Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions using Real-Time Spatial Compound Imaging in Combination with XRES Adaptive Image Processing. Ultraschall Med. 2012, 33: 270-274.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004, 233: 830-849. 10.1148/radiol.2333031484.CrossRefPubMed Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004, 233: 830-849. 10.1148/radiol.2333031484.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, Kuhn W, Schild HH: MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007, 370: 485-492. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61232-X.CrossRefPubMed Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, Kuhn W, Schild HH: MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007, 370: 485-492. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61232-X.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, et al: Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2004, 14: 1209-1216.CrossRefPubMed Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, et al: Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2004, 14: 1209-1216.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R, et al: MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001, 176 (2): 399-406. 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760399.CrossRefPubMed Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R, et al: MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001, 176 (2): 399-406. 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760399.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer
Authors
Ines V Gruber
Miriam Rueckert
Karl O Kagan
Annette Staebler
Katja C Siegmann
Andreas Hartkopf
Diethelm Wallwiener
Markus Hahn
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-328

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Cancer 1/2013 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine