Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements

被引:51
作者
Pritt, B
Ashikaga, T
Oppenheimer, RG
Weaver, DL
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Coll Med, Dept Pathol, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[2] Fletcher Allen Hlth Care, Burlington, VT USA
[3] Dept Biostat, Burlington, VT USA
[4] Univ Vermont, Vermont Reg Canc Ctr, Burlington, VT USA
[5] Med Ctr Hosp Vermont, Dept Radiol, Burlington, VT 05401 USA
关键词
breast neoplasms; cancer measurement; cancer staging; comparative studies; pathology; ultrasonography;
D O I
10.1038/modpathol.3800138
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Establishing an accurate primary invasive breast cancer size is crucial for patient management. Although ultrasonographic measurement is reported to correlate reliably with the gold standard pathology measurement, few authors have examined the influence of histologic subtype on ultrasound measurement. The common subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma, ductal and lobular, have different growth patterns, which may influence the ability of ultrasound to predict pathologic size. For this analysis, ultrasound and pathology reports were retrospectively reviewed for 204 women with 210 invasive breast cancers, including 129 ductal, 41 lobular, and 40 mixed pattern ductal and lobular carcinomas. For each tumor, the largest pathology and ultrasound dimensions were compared using Pearson's correlations, linear regression, paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests, stratified bit histologic subtype. The Hodges-Lehmann approach was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals (Cl) for median difference of the sizes. Ultrasonography consistently underestimated pathologic tumor size; the overall median difference was 3.5 mm (Cl: 2.5-4.0 mm) and for subtypes: 2.5 mm (Cl: 1.5-3.5 mm) for ductal pattern; 3.0 mm (Cl: 1.5-4.5 mm) for mixed pattern; and in contrast, 7.5 mm (Cl: 5.0-13.5 mm) for lobular pattern tumors. Significant correlations of similar magnitude, were observed between size measurements for ductal., lobular, and mixed subtypes (r=0.816, 0.811 and 0.672, respectively; all P<0.001); however, linear regression models differed between subtypes. Although practical and widely available, ultrasonography tends to underestimate pathologic tumor size. The size difference may be large for lobular carcinomas, potentially influencing stage; differences are less pronounced for ductal and mixed subtypes. Pathologic tumor size can be estimated from the ultrasonographic measurement, particularly if the histologic tumor subtype is known. The results of this study underscore the continued benefit of pretreatment tumor histology.
引用
收藏
页码:905 / 910
页数:6
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2002, AJCC cancer staging manual, P223, DOI [10.1007/978-1-4757-3656-4, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4757-3656-4]
  • [2] BREAST-TUMORS - COMPARATIVE ACCURACY OF MR-IMAGING RELATIVE TO MAMMOGRAPHY AND US FOR DEMONSTRATING EXTENT
    BOETES, C
    MUS, RDM
    HOLLAND, R
    BARENTSZ, JO
    STRIJK, SP
    WOBBES, T
    HENDRIKS, JHCL
    RUYS, SHJ
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1995, 197 (03) : 743 - 747
  • [3] Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography
    Davis, PL
    Staiger, MJ
    Harris, KB
    Ganott, MA
    Klementaviciene, J
    McCarthy, KS
    Tobon, H
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1996, 37 (01) : 1 - 9
  • [4] Ultrasound can estimate the pathologic size of infiltrating ductal carcinoma
    Finlayson, CA
    MacDermott, TA
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2000, 135 (02) : 158 - 159
  • [5] FORNAGE BD, 1987, CANCER, V60, P765, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19870815)60:4<765::AID-CNCR2820600410>3.0.CO
  • [6] 2-5
  • [7] ULTRASONOGRAPHY AS A METHOD OF MEASURING BREAST-TUMOR SIZE AND MONITORING RESPONSE TO PRIMARY SYSTEMIC TREATMENT
    FOROUHI, P
    WALSH, JS
    ANDERSON, TJ
    CHETTY, U
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1994, 81 (02) : 223 - 225
  • [8] MR-IMAGING OF THE BREAST WITH ROTATING DELIVERY OF EXCITATION OFF RESONANCE - CLINICAL-EXPERIENCE WITH PATHOLOGICAL CORRELATION
    HARMS, SE
    FLAMIG, DP
    HESLEY, KL
    MEICHES, MD
    JENSEN, RA
    EVANS, WP
    SAVINO, DA
    WELLS, RV
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1993, 187 (02) : 493 - 501
  • [9] Herrada J, 1997, CLIN CANCER RES, V3, P1565
  • [10] Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size
    Hieken, TJ
    Harrison, J
    Herreros, J
    Velasco, JM
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2001, 182 (04) : 351 - 354