Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.22.9759

Comparison of Primary Breast Cancer Size by Mammography and Sonography  

Wang, Jian-Tao (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Chang, Li-Ming (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Song, Xin (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Zhao, Li-Xin (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Li, Jun-Tao (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Zhang, Wei-Guo (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Ji, Ying-Bin (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Cai, Li-Na (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Di, Wei (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Yang, Xin-Yu (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital)
Publication Information
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention / v.15, no.22, 2014 , pp. 9759-9761 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: To compare tumor size by mammography and sonography and align with pathological results in primary breast cancer cases. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 95 primary breast cancer patients who underwent mammography and sonography from January 2011 to June 2012. The largest tumor diameter was chosen as sizing reference for each imaging modality. The measurements of mammography and sonography were considered concordant if they were within the measurement of pathological results ${\pm}0.5cm$. Pearson's correlation coefficient was calculated for imaging results. Results: The range of the maximum diameter was 0.6cm-10.5cm and mean value was $3.81{\pm}2.04cm$ by pathological results, 0.7cm-12.4 cm and $3.99{\pm}2.19cm$ by mammography, and 0.9cm-11.0cm and $3.63{\pm}2.01cm$ by sonography, respectively. Sonography (R: 0.754), underestimated tumor size, but had a better correlation with pathological tumor size compared to mammography (R: 0.676), which overestimated tumor size. Conclusions: Sonography is superior to mammography in assessment of primary breast cancer.
Keywords
Breast cancer; tumor size; mammography; sonography; pathology;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Allen SA, Cunliffe WJ, Gray J, et al (2001) Pre-operative estimation of primary breast cancer size: a comparison of clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasound. Breast, 10, 299-305   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, et al (2003) Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol, 48, 285-92   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, et al (1996) Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 37, 1-9   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Del Barco S, Ciruelos E, Tusquets I, Ruiz M, Barnadas A (2013) SEOM clinical guidelines for the systemic treatment of early breast cancer 2013. Clin Transl Oncol, 15, 1011-7   DOI
5 Dummin LJ, Cox M, Plant L (2007) Prediction of breast tumor size by mammography and sonography--A breast screen experience. Breast, 16, 38-46   DOI
6 Fornage BD, Toubas O, Morel M (1987) Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer, 60, 765-71   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Golshan M, Fung BB, Wiley E, et al (2004) Prediction of breast cancer size by ultrasound, mammography and core biopsy. Breast, 13, 265-71   DOI
8 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, 328   DOI
9 Heusinger K, Lohberg C, Lux MP, et al (2005) Assessment of breast cancer tumor size depends on method, histopathology and tumor size itself*. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 94, 17-23   DOI
10 Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J, Velasco JM (2001) Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg, 182, 351-4   DOI
11 Kantor O, Winchester DJ (2014) Breast conserving therapy for DCIS--does size matter? J Surg Oncol, 110, 75-81   DOI
12 Karellas A, Vedantham S (2008) Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade. Med Phys, 35, 4878-97   DOI
13 Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al (2013) Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med, 118, 1119-36   DOI
14 Roder D, Zorbas H, Kollias J, et al (2013) Factors predictive of treatment by Australian breast surgeons of invasive female breast cancer by mastectomy rather than breast conserving surgery. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 539-45   과학기술학회마을   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Madjar H, Ladner HA, Sauerbrei W, et al (1993) Preoperative staging of breast cancer by palpation, mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 3, 185-90   DOI
16 Pons F, Duch J, Fuster D (2009) Breast cancer therapy: the role of PET-CT in decision making. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 53, 210-23
17 Pritt B, Ashikaga T, Oppenheimer RG, Weaver DL (2004) Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements. Mod Pathol, 17, 905-10   DOI
18 Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, et al (2009) MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg, 75, 970-5
19 Yang WT, Lam WW, Cheung H, et al (1997) Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med, 16, 791-7