Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 5, Issue 5, pp 442–446 | Cite as

Assessment of tumor size for multifocal primary breast cancer

  • Edward B. Fish
  • Judy-Anne W. Chapman
  • Marilyn A. Link
Original Articles

Abstract

Background: Tumor size affects the choice of surgical procedure and patient prognosis. It is standardly assessed as the largest unidimensional measurement and, for multifocal disease, as the largest size of the largest focus. We examine some different methods of assessing tumor size: the standard method; the sum of the largest sizes for all foci; surface area; and volume.

Methods: Data for a cohort of 678 primary invasive breast cancer patients accrued from 1971 to 1990 were updated to 1996; there were 571 patients with unifocal disease and 107 patients with multifocal disease. We used step-wise Cox regression to investigate the effects on time to death of the prognostic factors tumor size (estimated in one of the four ways), age, nodal status, ER, PgR, adjuvant radiotherapy, adjuvant hormonal therapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy. We also examined the association between tumor focality and nodal status.

Results: For all patients, tumor size was included in the multivariate model, regardless of estimation method. For patients with multifocal disease, tumor size was included in the final model only when it was estimated as the total surface area (P=.03) or volume (P=.01) of the foci. More multifocal patients were N+ (P=.056).

Conclusions: For patients with multifocal disease, the significance association with mortality for total surface area or volume may imply a biologic relevance or mode of tumor activity for the foci.

Key Words

Breast cancer Multifocal disease 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gundersen HJG, Bendtsen TF, Korbo L, et al. Some new, simple and efficient stereological methods and their use in pathological research and diagnosis.APMIS 1988;96:379–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gundersen HJG, Bagger P, Bendtsen TF, et al. The new stereological tools: dissector, fractionator, nucleator and point sampled intercepts and their use in pathological research and diagnosis.APMIS 1988;96:857–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    LaRoye GJ, Panzarella T. Two techniques for measuring invasion in solid tumours. Evaluated in a retrospective study of 73 cases of breast carcinoma with 10-year follow-up.APMIS 1994;102:103–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fish EB, Chapman JW, Link MA. Minimal surgery for breast cancer.Proceedings of the 16th International Cancer Congress, New Delhi, India. Bologna, Italy: Monduzzi Editore, 1994:1387–91.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fish EB, Chapman JW, Link MA. Discriminant analyses of minimal versus maximal surgery for breast cancer.Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1994;32(Suppl):69. Abstract.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fish EB, Chapman JW, Link MA. Competing causes of death for primary breast cancer.Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1996;37(Suppl):54. Abstract.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapman JW, Fish EB, Link MA. Competing risks analysis for recurrence from primary breast cancer.Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1996;37(Suppl):57. Abstract.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koscielny S, Tubiana M, Le MG, Valleron AJ, Mouriesse H, Contesso G, Sarrazin D. Breast cancer: relationship between the size of the primary tumour and the probability of metastatic dissemination.Br J Cancer 1984;49:709–715.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sivaramakrishna R, Gordon R. Detection of breast cancer at a smaller size can reduce the likelihood of metastatic spread: a quantitative analysis.Acad Radiol 1997;4:8–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Surgical Oncology, Inc. 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward B. Fish
    • 1
  • Judy-Anne W. Chapman
    • 1
  • Marilyn A. Link
    • 1
  1. 1.Henrietta Banting Breast Centre, Women's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations