Tumor size measurements predicted by digital mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary invasive breast cancer disease

Shawnam Nasih Dawood; Aska Faruq Jamal

doi:10.15218/zjms.2024.32

Authors

Shawnam Nasih Dawood Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
Aska Faruq Jamal Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2024.32

Keywords:

Tumor size, Breast neoplasms, Pathology, Imaging, Breast density

Abstract

Background and objective: The size of the tumor significantly influences the prognosis and treatment approach for breast cancer patients. The aim of this study was to find the most accurate imaging method for estimating pre-treatment tumor size in women with newly diagnosed primary invasive breast cancer by comparing the predicted tumor size obtained from mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging with the pathologic size obtained from the surgical specimens.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included 181 primary invasive breast cancer patients from September 2021 to March 2023. The difference in tumor size was evaluated based on imaging and pathological reports. Variables such as age, breast density, and tumor characteristics like histologic type, grade, location, and side were recorded and analyzed. The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System was used for reporting. Data analysis, performed using SPSS Statistics software, included descriptive statistics, Spearman's correlation coefficient, and Lin's index. The statistical significance level was set at P <0.05.

Results: The mean tumor size was 29.68, 29.07, 28.37, and 27.7mm by mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and pathology, respectively. All diagnostic procedures revealed a statistically significant correlation with pathologic tumor size with the Spearman correlation test, P = 0.000. MRI had the highest Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (0.93).

Conclusion: The study determined that all imaging modalities were accurate in estimating tumor size when compared to the gold standard of pathological specimens and that magnetic resonance imaging outperformed digital mammography and ultrasonography.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71(3):209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

Lai HW, Chen CJ, Lin YJ, Chen SL, Wu HK, Wu YT, et al. Does breast magnetic resonance imaging combined with conventional imaging modalities decrease the rates of surgical margin involvement and reoperation? A case-control comparative analysis. Medicine 2016; 95(22):e3810. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003810

Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Wardelmann E, Kuhn W, Maass N, et al. Impact of preoperative breast MR imaging and MR-guided surgery on diagnosis and surgical outcome of women with invasive breast cancer with and without DCIS component. Radiology 2017; 284:645–55. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161449

França LK, Bitencourt AG, Paiva HL, Silva CB, Pereira NP, Paludo J, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the planning of breast cancer treatment strategies: comparison with conventional imaging techniques. Radiologia Brasileira 2017; 50:76–81. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0124

Sediguli S, Gowda RS, Ranganathan R. Tumor size assessment with three breast imaging modalities: Finding which is best? MJBL 2023; 20(2):244–8. doi: 10.4103/MJBL.MJBL_18_22

Azhdeh S, Kaviani A, Sadighi N, Rahmani M. Accurate Estimation of Breast Tumor Size: A Comparison Between Ultrasonography, Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Associated Contributing Factors. Eur J Breast Health 2020; 17(1):53–61. doi:10.4274/ejbh.2020.5888

Tan PH, Ellis I, Allison K, Brogi E, Fox SB, Lakhani S, et al. The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. Histopathology 2020; 77(2):181–5. doi:10.1111/his.14091

Cortadellas T, Argacha P, Acosta J, Rabasa J, Peiró R, Gomez M, et al. Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI-correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen. Gland Surg 2017; 6:330–5. doi: 10.21037/gs.2017.03.09

Dołęga-Kozierowski B, Lis M, Marszalska-Jacak H, Koziej M, Celer M, Bandyk M, et al. Multimodality imaging in lobular breast cancer: differences in mammography, ultrasound, and MRI in the assessment of local tumor extent and correlation with molecular characteristics. Frontiers in Oncology 2022; 12:855519. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.855519

Ruiz-Flores L, Whitman GJ, Le-Petross HC, Hess KR, Parikh JR. Variation in technical quality of breast MRI. Acad Radiol 2020; 27(4):468–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.07.002

Eghtedari M, Chong A, Rakow-Penner R, Ojeda-Fournier H. Current status and future of BI-RADS in multimodality imaging, from the AJR special series on radiology reporting and data systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 216(4):860–73. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24894.

da Costa Vieira RA, Biller G, Uemura G, Ruiz CA, Curado MP. Breast cancer screening in developing countries. Clinics 2017; 72:244–53. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2017(04)09.

Kim YE, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Chae EY, Choi WJ. The Accuracy of Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Measurement of Invasive Breast Cancer With Extensive Intraductal Components. Clin Breast Cancer 2023; 23(1):45–53. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.10.004.

Taydaş O, Durhan G, Akpınar MG, Demirkazık FB. Comparison of MRI and US in tumor size evaluation of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Breast Health 2019; 15:119–24. doi: 10.5152/ejbh.2019.4547.

Cuesta Cuesta AB, Ríos MD, Meseguer MR, Velasco JA, de Matías Martínez M, Sotillos SB, et al. Accuracy of tumor size measurements performed by magnetic resonance, ultrasound and mammography, and their correlation with pathological size in primary breast cancer. Cir Esp 2019; 97:391–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2019.04.017.

Gruber IV, Rueckert M, Kagan KO, Staebler A, Siegmann KC, Hartkopf A, et al. Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC cancer 2013; 13(1):1–8. doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-328

Leddy R, Irshad A, Metcalfe A, Mabalam P, Abid A, Ackerman S, et al. Comparative accuracy of preoperative tumor size assessment on mammography, sonography, and MRI: Is the accuracy affected by breast density or cancer subtype? J Clin Ultrasound 2016; 44:17–25. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22290.

Guadalupe LD, De Jesús J, Xiong Y, Rosa M. Tumor size and focality in breast carcinoma: analysis of concordance between radiological imaging modalities and pathological examination at a cancer center. Ann Diagn Pathol 2020; 48:151601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2020.151601

Baek SH, Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Chae EY. Comparison of mammography, ultrasound, and MRI in size assessment of ductal carcinoma in situ with histopathologic correlation. Acta Radiol 2017; 58(12):1434–41. doi: 10.1177/0284185117698860.

Youn I, Choi S, Choi YJ, Moon JH, Park HJ, Ham SY. Contrast enhanced digital mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging for accurate measurement of the size of breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2019; 92(1098):20180929. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20180929.

Stein RG, Wollschlager D, Kreienberg R, Janni W, Wischnewsky M, Diessner J, et al. The impact of breast cancer biological subtyping on tumor size assessment by ultrasound and mammography - a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 6543 primary breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 459. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2426-7.

Mohammadi-Jazi, B., Makhmali, P. Comparison of Breast Tumor Size Measurement Using Ultrasound and Mammography with Pathologic Report Following Mastectomy or Lumpectomy. J Isfahan Med Sch 2022; 40(681):578–86. doi: 10.48305/jims. v40.i681.0578

van Egdom LSE, Lagendijk M, Heijkoop EHM, Koning AHJ, van Deurzen CHM, Jager A, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonography of the breast: An adequate replacement for MRI in neoadjuvant chemotherapy tumour response evaluation? - RESPONDER trial. Eur J Radiol 2018; 104:94–100. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.05.005.

Kwon BR, Chang JM, Kim SY, Lee SH, Kim SY, Lee SM, et al. Automated breast ultrasound system for breast cancer evaluation: Diagnostic performance of the two-view scan technique in women with small breasts. Korean J Radiol 2020; 21:25–32. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0275.

Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, Gupta E, Andrews-Tang D, Roth A, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease. Radiology 2017; 285(2):389–400. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161592.

Park JY. Evaluation of Breast Cancer Size Measurement by Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD) and a Radiologist on Breast MRI. J Clin Med 2022; 11(5):1172. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051172

Min SK, Lee SK, Woo J, Jung SM, Ryu JM, Yu J, et al. Relation Between Tumor Size and Lymph Node Metastasis According to Subtypes of Breast Cancer. J Breast Cancer 2021; 24(1):75–84. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2021.24. e4.