The accuracy of breast volume measurement methods: A systematic review

被引:73
作者
Choppin, S. B. [1 ]
Wheat, J. S. [1 ]
Gee, M. [2 ]
Goyal, A. [3 ]
机构
[1] Sheffield Hallam Univ, Fac Hlth & Wellbeing, Ctr Sports Engn Res, Sheffield S10 2NA, S Yorkshire, England
[2] Sheffield Hallam Univ, Fac Hlth & Wellbeing, Ctr Hlth & Social Care Res, Sheffield S10 2BP, S Yorkshire, England
[3] Royal Derby Hosp, Dept Surg, Derby DE22 3NE, England
关键词
Volume measurement; Systematic review; Accuracy; Mammography; MRI; 3D imaging; MAMMOGRAPHIC DETERMINATION; 3D; RELIABILITY; CANCER;
D O I
10.1016/j.breast.2016.05.010
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Breast volume is a key metric in breast surgery and there are a number of different methods which measure it. However, a lack of knowledge regarding a method's accuracy and comparability has made it difficult to establish a clinical standard. We have performed a systematic review of the literature to examine the various techniques for measurement of breast volume and to assess their accuracy and usefulness in clinical practice. Each of the fifteen studies we identified had more than ten live participants and assessed volume measurement accuracy using a gold-standard based on the volume, or mass, of a mastectomy specimen. Many of the studies from this review report large (>200 ml) uncertainty in breast volume and many fail to assess measurement accuracy using appropriate statistical tools. Of the methods assessed, MRI scanning consistently demonstrated the highest accuracy with three studies reporting errors lower than 10% for small (250 ml), medium (500 ml) and large (1000 ml) breasts. However, as a high-cost, non-routine assessment other methods may be more appropriate. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:121 / 129
页数:9
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   MEASUREMENT IN MEDICINE - THE ANALYSIS OF METHOD COMPARISON STUDIES [J].
ALTMAN, DG ;
BLAND, JM .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES D-THE STATISTICIAN, 1983, 32 (03) :307-317
[2]   Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine [J].
Atkinson, G ;
Nevill, AM .
SPORTS MEDICINE, 1998, 26 (04) :217-238
[3]  
Beattie S, 2003, DIGIT MAMMO, P530
[4]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[5]  
Brody GS, 1981, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V68
[6]   Breast volume assessment: comparing five different techniques [J].
Bulstrode, N ;
Bellamy, E ;
Shrotria, S .
BREAST, 2001, 10 (02) :117-123
[7]   Prediction of cosmetic outcome following conservative breast surgery using breast volume measurements [J].
Bulstrode, NW ;
Shrotria, S .
BREAST, 2001, 10 (02) :124-126
[8]   The cost effectiveness of three different measures of breast volume [J].
Caruso, MK ;
Guillot, TS ;
Nguyen, T ;
Greenway, FL .
AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2006, 30 (01) :16-20
[9]  
Chou S, 1998, AUTOMEDICA, V16, P75
[10]  
Daly S E, 1995, J Hum Lact, V11, P27, DOI 10.1177/089033449501100120