Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast-conserving treatment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component (EIC) is associated with DCIS-involved surgical margins and therefore it has an increased recurrence rate. EIC is a non-palpable lesion...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bult Peter, Boetes Carla, Schouten van der Velden Arjan P, Wobbes Theo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2009-04-01
Series:BMC Medical Imaging
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2342/9/5
id doaj-85c03ee298b549c3b0e7eeaee3f50f1d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-85c03ee298b549c3b0e7eeaee3f50f1d2020-11-24T21:11:25ZengBMCBMC Medical Imaging1471-23422009-04-0191510.1186/1471-2342-9-5Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal componentBult PeterBoetes CarlaSchouten van der Velden Arjan PWobbes Theo<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast-conserving treatment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component (EIC) is associated with DCIS-involved surgical margins and therefore it has an increased recurrence rate. EIC is a non-palpable lesion of which the size is frequently underestimated on mammography. This study was undertaken to evaluate the accuracy of MRI in size assessment of breast cancer with EIC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>23 patients were identified and the mammographic (n = 21) and MR (n = 23) images were re-reviewed by a senior radiologist. Size on MR images was compared with histopathological tumour extent.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The correlation of radiological size with histopathological size was r = 0.20 in mammography (p = 0.39) compared to r = 0.65 in MRI (p < 0.01). Mammography underestimated histopathological tumour size in 62%. MR images over- or underestimated tumour size in 22% and 30% of the cases, respectively. In poorly differentiated EIC, MRI adequately estimated the extent more often compared to moderately differentiated EIC (60% versus 25%, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Size assessment of MRI imaging was more accurate compared to mammography. This was predominantly true for poorly differentiated EIC.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2342/9/5
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bult Peter
Boetes Carla
Schouten van der Velden Arjan P
Wobbes Theo
spellingShingle Bult Peter
Boetes Carla
Schouten van der Velden Arjan P
Wobbes Theo
Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component
BMC Medical Imaging
author_facet Bult Peter
Boetes Carla
Schouten van der Velden Arjan P
Wobbes Theo
author_sort Bult Peter
title Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component
title_short Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component
title_full Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component
title_fullStr Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component
title_full_unstemmed Magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component
title_sort magnetic resonance imaging in size assessment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component
publisher BMC
series BMC Medical Imaging
issn 1471-2342
publishDate 2009-04-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast-conserving treatment of invasive breast carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component (EIC) is associated with DCIS-involved surgical margins and therefore it has an increased recurrence rate. EIC is a non-palpable lesion of which the size is frequently underestimated on mammography. This study was undertaken to evaluate the accuracy of MRI in size assessment of breast cancer with EIC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>23 patients were identified and the mammographic (n = 21) and MR (n = 23) images were re-reviewed by a senior radiologist. Size on MR images was compared with histopathological tumour extent.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The correlation of radiological size with histopathological size was r = 0.20 in mammography (p = 0.39) compared to r = 0.65 in MRI (p < 0.01). Mammography underestimated histopathological tumour size in 62%. MR images over- or underestimated tumour size in 22% and 30% of the cases, respectively. In poorly differentiated EIC, MRI adequately estimated the extent more often compared to moderately differentiated EIC (60% versus 25%, respectively).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Size assessment of MRI imaging was more accurate compared to mammography. This was predominantly true for poorly differentiated EIC.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2342/9/5
work_keys_str_mv AT bultpeter magneticresonanceimaginginsizeassessmentofinvasivebreastcarcinomawithanextensiveintraductalcomponent
AT boetescarla magneticresonanceimaginginsizeassessmentofinvasivebreastcarcinomawithanextensiveintraductalcomponent
AT schoutenvanderveldenarjanp magneticresonanceimaginginsizeassessmentofinvasivebreastcarcinomawithanextensiveintraductalcomponent
AT wobbestheo magneticresonanceimaginginsizeassessmentofinvasivebreastcarcinomawithanextensiveintraductalcomponent
_version_ 1716753448881356800