Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer

被引:0
作者
Takayoshi Uematsu
Sachiko Yuen
Masako Kasami
Yoshihiro Uchida
机构
[1] Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital,Breast Imaging Section
[2] Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital,Department of Pathology
[3] Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital,Division of Breast Surgery
来源
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | 2008年 / 112卷
关键词
Breast; Imaging; MRI; MDCT; US; Mammography; Tumor extension;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction Breast imaging modalities can assess the tumor extent and adequacy of excision, but there have been no reports comparing magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT), ultrasonography (US) and mammography (MMG) for the tumor extent of breast cancer. We prospectively assessed the accuracy of MR imaging, MDCT, US and MMG for preoperative assessment of the tumor extent of breast cancer. Methods Preoperative MR imaging, MDCT, US and MMG were performed for 210 breasts with breast cancer. The MR and MDCT images were independently interpreted by one of two radiologists with knowledge of the clinical and MMG findings. The US was performed with knowledge of the clinical and MMG findings by one of five US technologists. The correlation of the results of these examinations with histological findings was examined. Results Of the 210 index breast tumors, 210 (100%) could be detected on MR, 208 (99%) were detected on MDCT, 209 (99.5%) were detected on US, and 195 (93%) were detected on MMG. For evaluating local tumor extent, the accuracy of MR imaging (76%) was significantly higher than those of MDCT, US, and MMG (71%, 56%, and 52%, respectively) (P = 0.001, P < 0.0001, and P < 0.0001). MDCT was significantly more accurate than US (P < .0001) or MMG (P < .0001), and US was significantly more accurate than MMG (P = 0.004). MR imaging and US had substantial risk (11% and 17%) of overestimation of the tumor extent. Regarding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), for non-comedo DCIS, the accuracies of MR imaging (89%), MDCT (72%), and US (61%) were significantly higher than the 22% accuracy of MMG (P < 0.0001, P = 0.012, and P = 0.016), but for comedo DCIS, there were no significant differences among the four breast imaging modalities. Conclusion MR imaging was the most accurate breast imaging modality for the tumor exten of breast cancer, although MR imaging had a substantial of risk of overestimation. MR imaging, MDCT and US can complement MMG for the preoperative evaluation of patients who are candidates for breast-conserving surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:461 / 474
页数:13
相关论文
共 159 条
[1]  
Vicini FA(1991)Treatment of early-stage breast cancer J Am Med Assoc 265 391-395
[2]  
Eberlein TL(1991)The optimal extent of resection for patients with stages 1 or 2 breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and radiotherapy Ann Sur 214 200-204
[3]  
Connolly JL(1995)The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long term results of breast conservation Cancer 76 259-267
[4]  
Recht A(1996)Pathologic margin involvement and the risk of recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy Cancer 78 1921-1928
[5]  
Abner A(1998)Predictors of breast recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer Mod Pathol 11 134-139
[6]  
Schnitt SJ(1995)Patient selection for breast conservation therapy with magnification mammography Surgery 118 621-626
[7]  
Silen W(2000)Role of ultrasonography in the detection of intraductal spread of breast cancer: correlation with pathologic findings, mammography and MR imaging Eur Radiol 10 1726-1732
[8]  
Harris JR(2004)Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography J Am Coll Surg 198 190-197
[9]  
Smitt MC(2004)Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer Radiology 233 830-849
[10]  
Nowels KW(2001)Three-dimensional helical CT of the breast: accuracy for measuring extent of breast cancer candidates for breast conserving surgery Breast Cancer Res Treat 65 249-257