Total views : 794

Prediction of Postoperative Tumor Size in Breast Cancer Patients by Clinical Assessment, Mammography and Ultrasonography

Affiliations

  • Consultant Radiation Oncology, Chairman of Radiation Protection Unit, Director of Breast Cancer Research Chair, King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • Assistant Consultant Radiation Oncology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia

Abstract


Background: Aim of study was to determine which is the most optimal and accurate preoperative modality (physical assessment, ultrasonography or mammography) to predict the histopathological size in breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) or modified radical mastectomy (MRM). Material and Methods: Between February 1988 and August 2008, 112 confirmed breast cancer patients referred to our tertiary care center underwent thorough physical examination, mammography and ultrasonography before surgery. Findings of physical assessment, mammography and ultrasonography were compared with post-surgical tumor size. The correlation between different tumor size findings was calculated using the Pearson correlative coefficients Results: Mean age of cohort was 47.0 years {range: 23-76; standard deviation (SD) 10.3. According to menopausal status, 93 patients (83.0%) were premenopausal and 19 patients (17.0%) were postmenopausal. Mean histopathological tumor size was 3.63 cm (range: 0.7-9). Preoperative ultrasonography findings were close to histopathological tumor size (R: 0.91, R2: 0.83, p 0.03), whereas both physical examination and mammography overestimated the tumor size (R: 0.53, R2:0.28, p 0.0001) and (R: 0.43, R2: 1.89, p0.001) respectively. Conclusion: Postoperative tumor size assessment was better with ultrasonography and findings of our studies suggest the use of ultrasonography to determine the postoperative tumor size in premenopausal women with breast cancer.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 471)

References


  • Al-Eid H S (2012). Cancer incidence and survival report Saudi Arabia 2007, Available from: http://www.scr.org.sa/ reports/SCR2007.pdf
  • Ibrahim E M, Zeeneldin A A et al. (2008). The present and the future of breast cancer burden in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Medical Oncology, vol 25, 387–393.
  • Morris K T, Vetto J T et al. (2002). A new score for the evaluation of palpable breast masses in women under age 40, The American Journal of Surgery, vol 184(4), 346–347.
  • Pande A R, Lohani B et al. (2003). Predictive value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of palpable breast lump, Kathmandu University Medical Journal (KUMJ), vol 1, 78–84.
  • Van Dongen J A, Bartelink H et al. (1992). Randomized clinical trial to assess the value of breast conserving therapy in stage I and II breast cancer, EORTC 10801 trial, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol 11, 15–18.
  • Allen S A, Cunliffe W J et al. (2001). Pre-operative estimation of primary breast cancer size: a comparison of clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasound, The Breast, vol 10, 299–305.
  • Fornage B D, Toubas O et al. (1987). Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size, Cancer, vol 60, 765–771.
  • Pain J A, Ebbs S R et al. (1992). Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods, European Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol 18, 44–48.
  • Pierie JPEN, Perre C I et al. (1998). Clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasonography as methods of measuring the size of breast cancer: a comparison, The Breast, vol 7, 247–250.
  • Bland J M, and Altman D G (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement, Lancet, vol 8, 307–310.
  • Davies P L, Staiger M J et al. (1996). Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, vol 37, 1–9.
  • Lewin J M, Hendrick R E et al. (2001). Comparison of fullfield digital mammography with screen film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology, vol 218, 873–880.
  • Dennis M A, Parker S H et al. (2001). Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump, Radiology, vol 219, 186–191.
  • Avril N, Schelling M et al. (1999).Utility of PET in breast cancer, Clinical Positron Imaging, vol 2, 261–271.
  • Bombardieri E, and Grippa F (2001). PET imaging in breast cancer, The Quarterly Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, vol 45, 245–256.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.