Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Which factors influence MRI-pathology concordance of tumour size measurements in breast cancer?

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess MRI-pathology concordance and factors influencing tumour size measurement in breast cancer.

Materials and methods

MRI tumour size (greatest diameter in anatomical planes (MRI-In-Plane) and greatest diameter along main tumour axis (MRI-MPR)) of 115 consecutive breast lesions (59 invasive lobular carcinoma, 46 invasive ductal carcinoma, and 10 ductal carcinoma in situ) was retrospectively compared to size measured at histopathology (pT size (Path-TNM) and greatest tumour diameter as relevant for excision (Path-Diameter; reference standard)). Histopathological tumour types, preoperative palpability, surgical management, additional high-risk lesions, and BI-RADS lesion type (mass versus non-mass enhancements) were assessed as possible influencing factors.

Results

Systematic errors were most pronounced between MRI-MPR and Path-TNM (7.1 mm, limits of agreement (LoA) [-21.7; 35.9]), and were lowest between MRI-In-Plane and Path-Diameter (0.2 mm, LoA [-19.7; 20.1]). Concordance rate of MRI-In-Plane with Path-Diameter was 86 % (97/113), overestimation 9 % (10/113) and underestimation 5 % (6/113); BI-RADS mass lesions were overestimated in 7 % (6/81) versus 41 % (13/32) for non-mass enhancements. On multivariate analysis only BI-RADS lesion type significantly influenced MRI-pathology concordance (p < 0.001). 2/59 (3 %) ILC did not enhance.

Conclusion

Concordance rate varies according to the execution of MRI and histopathological measurements. Beyond this only non-mass enhancement significantly predicted discordance.

Key Points

Execution and scope of MRI and histopathological size measurements influence concordance rate.

Non-mass like enhancement predicts discordance.

Additional high-risk lesions in proximity of tumour do not cause measurement discordance.

Low percentage of ILC do not enhance at all.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

IDC:

Invasive ductal carcinoma

ILC:

Invasive lobular carcinoma

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

LoA:

Limits of agreement

MIP:

Maximum intensity projection

MRI-In-Plane:

Greatest diameter in anatomical planes on MRI

MRI-MPR:

Greatest diameter along main tumour axis on MRI

MPR:

Multiplanar reconstruction

Path-TNM:

pT-stage size according to TNM at histopathology

Path-Diameter:

Greatest tumour diameter as relevant for excision at histopathology

References

  1. Tot T, Gere M (2008) Radiological-pathological correlation in diagnosing breast carcinoma: the role of pathology in the multimodality era. Pathol Oncol Res 14:173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Painter TJ, Dipasco PJ, Misra S, Avisar E (2011) Effect of magnetic resonance imaging on breast conservation therapy versus mastectomy: a review of the literature. Int J Surg Oncol 2011:428653

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Mann RM, Veltman J, Barentsz JO, Wobbes T, Blickman JG, Boetes C (2008) The value of MRI compared to mammography in the assessment of tumour extent in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:135–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grimsby GM, Gray R, Dueck A et al (2009) Is there concordance of invasive breast cancer pathologic tumor size with magnetic resonance imaging? Am J Surg 198:500–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th ed

  6. Foote FW, Stewart FW (1946) A histologic classification of carcinoma of the breast. Surgery 19:74–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris J, Lippman M, Osborne C, Morrow M (2010) Diseases of the breast, 4th ed

  8. Mann RM (2010) The effectiveness of MR imaging in the assessment of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:259–276, ix

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tot T (2003) The diffuse type of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology and prognosis. Virchows Arch 443:718–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kneeshaw PJ, Turnbull LW, Smith A, Drew PJ (2003) Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging aids the surgical management of invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 29:32–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Boetes C, Veltman J, van Die L, Bult P, Wobbes T, Barentsz JO (2004) The role of MRI in invasive lobular carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 86:31–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Beljavskaja M et al (2004) Preoperative MRT of the breast in invasive lobular carcinoma in comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma. Röfo 176:544–549

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mann RM, Hoogeveen YL, Blickman JG, Boetes C (2008) MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a review of existing literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:1–14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Rodenko GN, Harms SE, Pruneda JM et al (1996) MR imaging in the management before surgery of lobular carcinoma of the breast: correlation with pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:1415–1419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Francis A, England DW, Rowlands DC, Wadley M, Walker C, Bradley SA (2001) The diagnosis of invasive lobular breast carcinoma. Does MRI have a role? Breast 10:38–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Munot K, Dall B, Achuthan R, Parkin G, Lane S, Horgan K (2002) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and single-stage surgical resection of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Br J Surg 89:1296–1301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gümüş H, Mills P, Jones S et al (2012) Invasive lobular carcinoma: the concordance of pathologic tumor size with magnetic resonance imaging. J Breast Heal 8:81–85

    Google Scholar 

  18. Muttalib M, Ibrahem R, Khashan A, Hajaj M (2014) Prospective MRI assessment for invasive lobular breast cancer. Correlation with tumour size at histopathology and influence on surgical management. Clin Radiol 69:23–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosen PP (2008) Rosen’s breast pathology, 3rd ed

  20. (2003) ACR BI-RADS® magnetic resonance imaging, 4th ed. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast imaging report data syst

  21. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schuh F, Biazús JV, Resetkova E, Benfica CZ, Edelweiss MIA (2010) Reproducibility of three classification systems of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using a web-based survey. Pathol Res Pract 206:705–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cilotti A, Iacconi C, Marini C et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med 112:272–286

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Behjatnia B, Sim J, Bassett LW, Moatamed NA, Apple SK (2010) Does size matter? Comparison study between MRI, gross, and microscopic tumor sizes in breast cancer in lumpectomy specimens. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 3:303–309

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Onesti JK, Mangus BE, Helmer SD, Osland JS (2008) Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements. Am J Surg 196:844–848, discussion 849–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McGhan LJ, Wasif N, Gray RJ et al (2010) Use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for invasive lobular cancer: good, better, but maybe not the best? Ann Surg Oncol 17:255–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gruber I, Rueckert M, Kagan K et al (2013) Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer 13:328

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsu P-K, Huang H-C, Hsieh C-C et al (2007) Effect of formalin fixation on tumor size determination in stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 84:1825–1829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen CH, Hsu MY, Jiang RS, Wu SH, Chen FJ, Liu SA (2012) Shrinkage of head and neck cancer specimens after formalin fixation. J Chin Med Assoc 75:109–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Krekel NMA, van Slooten HJ, Barbe E, de Lange de Klerk ESM, Meijer S, van den Tol MP (2012) Is breast specimen shrinkage really a problem in breast-conserving surgery? J Clin Pathol 65:224–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zaidi M, Khan S, Farooqi NB, Abbas K, Idrees R (2014) Effect of formalin fixation on surgical margins in breast cancer surgical specimen. Int J Breast Cancer 2014:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yeap BH, Muniandy S, Lee S-K, Sabaratnam S, Singh M (2007) Specimen shrinkage and its influence on margin assessment in breast cancer. Asian J Surg 30:183–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tot T (2010) The origins of early breast carcinoma. Semin Diagn Pathol 27:62–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tot T, Gere M, Pekár G et al (2011) Breast cancer multifocality, disease extent, and survival. Hum Pathol 42:1761–1769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Tot T (2010) Cost-benefit analysis of using large-format histology sections in routine diagnostic breast care. Breast 19:284–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mennella S, Garlaschi A, Paparo F et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: factors affecting the accuracy of preoperative lesion sizing. Acta Radiol 56:260–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Schouten van der Velden AP, Boetes C, Bult P, Wobbes T (2006) The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg 192:172–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thomassin-Naggara I, Siles P, Trop I et al (2013) How to measure breast cancer tumoral size at MR imaging? Eur J Radiol 82:e790–e800

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Heller SL, Moy L (2012) Imaging features and management of high-risk lesions on contrast-enhanced dynamic breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:249–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mann RM, Bult P, van Laarhoven HWM et al (2013) Breast cancer size estimation with MRI in BRCA mutation carriers and other high risk patients. Eur J Radiol 82:1416–1422

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E et al (2004) Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1209–1216

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Levrini G, Mori CA, Vacondio R, Borasi G, Nicoli F (2008) MRI patterns of invasive lobular cancer: T1 and T2 features. Radiol Med 113:1110–1125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kreienberg R, Albert U, Follmann M, Kopp I, Kühn T, Wöckel A (2012) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms

  45. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Fütterer JJ, Boetes C, van Die LE, Jager G, Barentsz JO (2005) Variability in the description of morphologic and contrast enhancement characteristics of breast lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Investig Radiol 40:355–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rominger MB, Fournell D, Nadar BT et al (2009) Accuracy of MRI volume measurements of breast lesions: comparison between automated, semiautomated and manual assessment. Eur Radiol 19:1097–1107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. Marga Rominger. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval: waived requirement for IRB approval and informed consent because retrospective study and anonymity was ensured. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. The manuscript contains parts of the thesis work of cand. med. Daniela Berg (second author)

Methodology: retrospective, case-control study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Rominger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rominger, M., Berg, D., Frauenfelder, T. et al. Which factors influence MRI-pathology concordance of tumour size measurements in breast cancer?. Eur Radiol 26, 1457–1465 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3935-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3935-5

Keywords

Navigation