Assessment of Breast Cancer Tumor Size Depends on Method, Histopathology and Tumor Size Itself*
- 164 Downloads
Purpose.Mammography (MG), breast (BU) and axillary ultrasound (AU), and clinical examination (CE) are commonly used for clinical staging. These different methods were compared in order to assess the accuracy of clinical tumor staging (cT).
Method.About 503 breast cancer (BC) patients were prospectively measured by MG, ultrasound and clinical examination. Pearson’s correlation to pathological tumor size (pT) was tested and the deviation of MG, BU and CE to pT was analyzed in subgroups defined by pT, grading (G), estrogen receptor (ER), progesteron receptor (PR), proliferation (MIB-1) and HER2/neu. Association of AU to pN was examined by χ2-test. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were used to test the prediction of a pT > 2 cm.
Results.Mammography correlated best with pT (r = 0.752). Mammography (mean (MG) = 2.17 cm) overestimated tumors in size (mean (pT) = 2.04 cm) rather than ultrasound (mean (BU) = 1.86 cm) and clinical examination (mean (cT) = 1.70 cm). pT of invasive ductal BC could be estimated significantly better than pT of invasive lobular BC. Smaller tumors were better to assess than larger ones. Tumors with a grading G1 were easier to estimate than tumors with G2/3. Best predictor of a pT > 2 cm was the mammography with an area under the curve of 0.876. The combination of all three modalities by linear regression performed even better with an AUC of 0.906.
Conclusions.The dimension of invasive ductal carcinomas, small and low grading tumors is significantly better to estimate. Concerning treatment decisions, we propose a combination of all three modalities, as the best predictive value was seen for the complementary use of mammography, ultrasound and clinical examination.
Key wordsaccuracy breast cancer clinical staging mammography tumor size ultrasound
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Beckmann, MW, Nestle-Kraemling, C, Lux, MP, Klemt, D, Schroer, B, Goecke, TO, Niederacher, D, Fasching, PA 2001Das Familiäre Mammakarzinom-Syndrom: prädiktive genetische Testung, Beratung und BetreuungMed Welt12385390Google Scholar
- 2.Beckmann, MW, Fasching, PA, Weiss, JM, Magener, A, Ortmann, O 2003Update primäres Mammakarzinom 2003Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd04R66R91Google Scholar
- 3.Fisher, B, Bryant, J, Wolmark, N, Mamounas, E, Brown, A, Fisher, ER, Wickerham, DL, Begovic, M, DeCillis, A, Robidoux, A, Margolese, RG, Cruz, AB,Jr., Hoehn, JL, Lees, AW, Dimitrov, NV, Bear, HD 1998Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancerJ Clin Oncol1626722685PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Fisher, B, Brown, A, Mamounas, E, Wieand, S, Robidoux, A, Margolese, RG, Cruz, AB, ,Jr., Fisher, ER, Wickerham, DL, Wolmark, N, DeCillis, A, Hoehn, JL, Lees, AW, Dimitrov, NV 1997Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18J Clin Oncol1524832493PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Scholl, SM, Fourquet, A, Asselain, B, Pierga, JY, Vilcoq, JR, Durand, JC, Dorval, T, Palangie, T, Jouve, M, Beuzeboc, P, et al. 1994Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal patients with tumours considered too large for breast conserving surgery: preliminary results of a randomised trial: S6Eur J Cancer30A645652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kaufmann, M, Minckwitz, G, Smith, R, Valero, V, Gianni, L, Eiermann, W, Howell, A, Costa, SD, Beuzeboc, P, Untch, M, Blohmer, JU, Sinn, HP, Sittek, R, Souchon, R, Tulusan, AH, Volm, T, Senn, HJ 2003International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: review and recommendationsJ Clin Oncol2126002608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Veronesi, U, Salvadori, B, Luini, A, Greco, M, Saccozzi, R, Vecchio, M, Mariani, L, Zurrida, S, Rilke, F 1995Breast conservation is a safe method in patients with small cancer of the breast. Long-term results of three randomised trials on 1,973 patientsEur J Cancer31A15741579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Herrada, J, Iyer, RB, Atkinson, EN, Sneige, N, Buzdar, AU, Hortobagyi, GN 1997Relative value of physical examination, mammography, and breast sonography in evaluating the size of the primary tumor and regional lymph node metastases in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinomaClin Cancer Res315651569PubMedGoogle Scholar