TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of breast cancer histology on the relationship between ultrasound and pathology tumor size measurements
AU - Pritt, Bobbi
AU - Ashikaga, Takamaru
AU - Oppenheimer, Robert G.
AU - Weaver, Donald L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by a grant (P30-CA22435) from the National Cancer Institute. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute, or the federal government. The data were presented in part at the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology 92nd Annual Meeting, March 24, 2003, Washington, DC.
PY - 2004/8
Y1 - 2004/8
N2 - Establishing an accurate primary invasive breast cancer size is crucial for patient management. Although ultrasonographic measurement is reported to correlate reliably with the gold standard pathology measurement, few authors have examined the influence of histologic subtype on ultrasound measurement. The common subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma, ductal and lobular, have different growth patterns, which may influence the ability of ultrasound to predict pathologic size. For this analysis, ultrasound and pathology reports were retrospectively reviewed for 204 women with 210 invasive breast cancers, including 129 ductal, 41 lobular, and 40 mixed pattern ductal and lobular carcinomas. For each tumor, the largest pathology and ultrasound dimensions were compared using Pearson's correlations, linear regression, paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests, stratified by histologic subtype. The Hodges-Lehmann approach was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median difference of the sizes. Ultrasonography consistently underestimated pathologic tumor size; the overall median difference was 3.5 mm (CI: 2.5-4.0 mm) and for subtypes: 2.5 mm (CI: 1.5-3.5 mm) for ductal pattern; 3.0 mm (CI: 1.5-4.5 mm) for mixed pattern; and in contrast, 7.5 mm (CI: 5.0-13.5 mm) for lobular pattern tumors. Significant correlations of similar magnitude, were observed between size measurements for ductal, lobular, and mixed subtypes (r=0.816, 0.811 and 0.672, respectively; all P<0.001); however, linear regression models differed between subtypes. Although practical and widely available, ultrasonography tends to underestimate pathologic tumor size. The size difference may be large for lobular carcinomas, potentially influencing stage; differences are less pronounced for ductal and mixed subtypes. Pathologic tumor size can be estimated from the ultrasonographic measurement, particularly if the histologic tumor subtype is known. The results of this study underscore the continued benefit of pretreatment tumor histology.
AB - Establishing an accurate primary invasive breast cancer size is crucial for patient management. Although ultrasonographic measurement is reported to correlate reliably with the gold standard pathology measurement, few authors have examined the influence of histologic subtype on ultrasound measurement. The common subtypes of invasive breast carcinoma, ductal and lobular, have different growth patterns, which may influence the ability of ultrasound to predict pathologic size. For this analysis, ultrasound and pathology reports were retrospectively reviewed for 204 women with 210 invasive breast cancers, including 129 ductal, 41 lobular, and 40 mixed pattern ductal and lobular carcinomas. For each tumor, the largest pathology and ultrasound dimensions were compared using Pearson's correlations, linear regression, paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests, stratified by histologic subtype. The Hodges-Lehmann approach was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals (CI) for median difference of the sizes. Ultrasonography consistently underestimated pathologic tumor size; the overall median difference was 3.5 mm (CI: 2.5-4.0 mm) and for subtypes: 2.5 mm (CI: 1.5-3.5 mm) for ductal pattern; 3.0 mm (CI: 1.5-4.5 mm) for mixed pattern; and in contrast, 7.5 mm (CI: 5.0-13.5 mm) for lobular pattern tumors. Significant correlations of similar magnitude, were observed between size measurements for ductal, lobular, and mixed subtypes (r=0.816, 0.811 and 0.672, respectively; all P<0.001); however, linear regression models differed between subtypes. Although practical and widely available, ultrasonography tends to underestimate pathologic tumor size. The size difference may be large for lobular carcinomas, potentially influencing stage; differences are less pronounced for ductal and mixed subtypes. Pathologic tumor size can be estimated from the ultrasonographic measurement, particularly if the histologic tumor subtype is known. The results of this study underscore the continued benefit of pretreatment tumor histology.
KW - Breast neoplasms
KW - Cancer measurement
KW - Cancer staging
KW - Comparative studies
KW - Pathology
KW - Ultrasonography
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3342989949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3342989949&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/modpathol.3800138
DO - 10.1038/modpathol.3800138
M3 - Review article
C2 - 15105809
AN - SCOPUS:3342989949
SN - 0893-3952
VL - 17
SP - 905
EP - 910
JO - Modern Pathology
JF - Modern Pathology
IS - 8
ER -