scholarly journals The assessment of primary breast cancer tumor size by magnetic resonance imaging, breast ultrasonography and mammography: a comparative study across intrinsic tumor subtype

The Breast ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 56 ◽  
pp. S71
Author(s):  
C.F. Pop ◽  
C. Stanciu Pop ◽  
S. Drisis ◽  
M. Radermeker ◽  
C. Vandemerckt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Primary Breast Cancer ◽  
Tumor Subtype ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Breast Ultrasonography ◽  
Cancer Tumor

Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements

2008 ◽  
Vol 196 (6) ◽  
pp. 844-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill K. Onesti ◽  
Barry E. Mangus ◽  
Stephen D. Helmer ◽  
Jacqueline S. Osland
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Cancer Tumor

Breast Cancer Tumor Size Assessment with Mammography, Ultrasonography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging at a Community Based Multidisciplinary Breast Center

2012 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 440-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Ines Ramirez ◽  
Max Scholle ◽  
Jennifer Buckmaster ◽  
Robert Hunter Paley ◽  
Gopal Chandru Kowdley
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Tumor Size ◽  
Preoperative Imaging ◽  
Breast Cancers ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Breast Center ◽  
Cancer Tumor

Paramount to staging and patient management is accurately measuring the size of invasive breast cancers. We assessed the accuracy of mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at our community-based hospital in which multiple radiologists and imaging machines are used in the care of our patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 277 patients seen at our breast center from 2009 to 2010. We tabulated MG, US, and MRI-reported tumor sizes in 161 women with pathology-proven invasive breast cancer and compared the preoperative size measurements with final pathologic tumor size. In the 161 patients, 169 lesions were identified. Imaging using all three modalities was available in 47 patients. When compared with final pathology, MRI had a correlation of r = 0.75 to mean tumor size as compared with US (r = 0.67) and MG (r = 0.76). Mean tumor size was 1.90 cm by MG, 1.87 cm by US, 2.40 cm by MRI, and 2.19 cm by pathology. We were able to achieve an excellent correlation of pathologic tumor size to preoperative imaging. The absolute differences in size between the modalities were small. MRI, in select patients, added to the assessment of tumor size based on US and MG.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document