The value of chest CT for prediction of breast tumor size: comparison with pathology measurement

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Hye-Young Choi¹  Yon Mi Sung¹  Yoon Kyung Kim¹  Eun Kyung Cho³  Heung Kyu Park²  Eun Young Kim¹  Young Saing Kim³  Su Joa Ahn¹ 

[1] Department of Radiology, Gachon University GilHospital, 1198, Guwol-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon, 405-760, Republic of Korea;Department of Surgery, Gachon University Gil Hospital, 1198, Guwol-dong, Namdong-gu, Incheon, 405-760, Republic of Korea;Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Hospital, Incheon, Republic of Korea

关键词: Pathology;    Tumor size;    Chest CT;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  823878
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7819-11-130

 received in 2012-12-11, accepted in 2013-05-17,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Little information is available on the use of chest computed tomography (CT) to predict breast tumor size in breast cancer, despite the fact that chest CT examinations are being increasingly used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of chest CT for predicting breast tumor size using pathology measurements as reference standards.

Methods

Tumor sizes (defined as greatest diameter) were retrospectively measured on the preoperative chest CT images of 285 patients with surgically proven unifocal, invasive breast carcinoma. Greatest tumor diameters as determined by chest CT and pathologic examinations were compared by linear regression and Spearman’s rho correlation analysis. Concordance between CT and pathology results was defined as a diameter difference of <5 mm. Subgroup analyses were also performed with respect to tumor size (<20 mm or ≥20 mm) and histological subtype (invasive ductal carcinoma(IDC) or non-IDC).

Results

CT and pathology measured diameters were found to be linearly related (size at pathology = 1.086 × CT determined tumor size - 1.141; Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient = 0.84, P<0.001). Most tumors (n = 228, 80.0%) were concordant by chest CT and pathology, but 36 tumors (12.7%) were underestimated by CT (average underestimation, 11 mm; range, 6–36 mm) and 21 tumors (7.4%) were overestimated (average overestimation by CT, 10 mm; range, 6–19 mm). The concordance rate between the two sets of measurements was greater for tumor of <20 mm and for IDC (P<0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively).

Conclusions

Tumor size by chest CT is well correlated with pathology determined tumor size in breast cancer patients, and the diameters of the majority of tumors by chest CT and pathology differed by <5 mm. In addition, the concordance rate was higher for breast tumors of <20 mm and for tumors of the IDC histologic subtype.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Ahn et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010, 60:277-300.
• [2]Anscher MS, Jones P, Prosnitz LR, Blackstock W, Hebert M, Reddick R, Tucker A, Dodge R, Leight G Jr, Iglehart JD: Local failure and margin status in early-stage breast carcinoma treated with conservation surgery and radiation therapy. Ann Surg 1993, 218:22-28.
• [3]Fortin A, Larochelle M, Laverdiere J, Lavertu S, Tremblay D: Local failure is responsible for the decrease in survival for patients with breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. J ClinOncol 1999, 17:101-109.
• [4] : NCCN practice guidelines in oncology v.2.2011.NCCN. 2011. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf webcite
• [5]Kim H, Han W, Moon HG, Min J, Ahn SK, Kim TY, Im SA, Oh DY, Han SW, Chie EK, Ha SW, Noh DY: The value of preoperative staging chest computed tomography to detect asymptomatic lung and liver metastasis in patients with primary breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011, 126:637-641.
• [6]Hurwitz LM, Reiman RE, Yoshizumi TT, Goodman PC, Toncheva G, Nguyen G, Lowry C: Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology 2007, 245:742-750.
• [7]Hata T, Takahashi H, Watanabe K, Takahashi M, Taguchi K, Itoh T, Todo S: Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography. J Am CollSurg 2004, 198:190-197.
• [8]Nakahara H, Namba K, Wakamatsu H, Watanabe R, Furusawa H, Shirouzu M, Matsu T, Tanaka C, Akiyama F, Ifuku H, Nakahara M, Tamura S: Extension of breast cancer: comparison of CT and MRI. Radiat Med 2002, 20:17-23.
• [9]Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004, 233:830-849.
• [10]Onesti JK, Mangus BE, Helmer SD, Osland JS: Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements. Am J Surg 2008, 196:844-848. discussion 849–850
• [11]Vandermeer FQ, Bluemke DA: Breast MRI: state of the art. Cancer Invest 2007, 25:384-392.
• [12]Uematsu T, Sano M, Homma K: False-positive helical CT findings of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer: is attenuation of tumor useful for diagnosing enhanced lesions? Breast Cancer 2002, 9:62-68.
• [13]Uematsu T, Sano M, Homma K, Shiina M, Kobayashi S: Three-dimensional helical CT of the breast: accuracy for measuring extent of breast cancer candidates for breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001, 65:249-257.
• [14]Uematsu TSM, Sano M, Homma K, Sato N: Comparison between high resolution helical CT and pathology in breast examination. Acta Radiol 2002, 43:385-390.
• [15]Uematsu T, Sano M, Homma K, Makino H, Shiina M, Kobayashi S, Shimizu K: Staging of palpable T1-2 invasive breast cancer with helical CT. Breast Cancer 2001, 8:125-130.
• [16]Takase K, Furuta A, Harada N, Takahashi T, Igarashi K, Chiba Y, Haga K, Takahashi S: Assessing the extent of breast cancer using multidetector row helical computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006, 30:479-485.
• [17]Inoue M, Sano T, Watai R, Ashikaga R, Ueda K, Watatani M, Nishimura Y: Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 181:679-686.
• [18]Sardanelli F, Calabrese M, Zandrino F, Melani E, Parodi R, Imperiale A, Massa T, Parodi G, Canavese G: Dynamic helical CT of breast tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998, 22:398-407.
• [19]Evans SH, Davis R, Cooke J, Anderson W: A comparison of radiation doses to the breast in computed tomographic chest examinations for two scanning protocols. ClinRadiol 1989, 40:45-46.
• [20]Behjatnia B, Sim J, Bassett LW, Moatamed NA, Apple SK: Does size matter? Comparison study between MRI, gross, and microscopic tumor sizes in breast cancer in lumpectomy specimens. Int J ClinExpPathol 2010, 3:303-309.
• [21]Pritt B, Ashikaga T, Oppenheimer RG, Weaver DL: Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements. Mod Pathol 2004, 17:905-910.
• [22]Ramirez SI, Scholle M, Buckmaster J, Paley RH, Kowdley GC: Breast cancer tumor size assessment with mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging at a community based multidisciplinary breast center. Am Surg 2012, 78:440-446.
• [23]March DE, Wechsler RJ, Kurtz AB, Rosenberg AL, Needleman L: CT-pathologic correlation of axillary lymph nodes in breast carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991, 15:440-444.
• [24]Sagel SS: HSL, pleura, chest wall. In Computed body tomography with MRI correlation. Edited by Lee JKT, Sagel SS, Stanley RY. New York, NY: Raven; 2003.
• [25]Pritt B, Tessitore JJ, Weaver DL, Blaszyk H: The effect of tissue fixation and processing on breast cancer size. Hum Pathol 2005, 36:756-760.