Does size matter? Comparison study between MRI, gross, and microscopic tumor sizes in breast cancer in lumpectomy specimens

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Pathology

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 303-309

  Behjatnia, Bita ^a   Sim, Julie ^b   Bassett, Lawrence W ^c   Moatamed, Neda A ^d   Apple, Sophia K ^d  

^a Department of Pathology   (United States)

^b Torrance memorial hosp ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Gross pathology; Microscopic pathology; MRI; Tumor size

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER STAGING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; HUMAN; LUNG CARCINOMA; METHODOLOGY; MICROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SEGMENTAL MASTECTOMY;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MICROSCOPY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 77953368318     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19362625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Firtz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG, Marrow M, et al, editors. American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Cancer Staging Manual. 6th ed. New York: Springer; 2002:221-40.
2. Sobin LH, Wittekind CH. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 6th edn. New York:Wiley, 2002.
3. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: College of American Pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124:966-78.
4. 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 (8): 905-10.
5. Apple SK, Suthar F. How do we measure a residual tumor size in istopathology (gold standard) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Breast 2005; 15(3):370-6.
6. Bartella L, Smith CS, Dershaw DD, Liberman L. Imaging breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45(1):45-67.
7. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: Evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(1):110-19.
8. Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI detected breast lesion size. AJR 2006; 186:426-30.
9. Kristoffersen Wiberg MK, Aspelin P, Sylvan M, Bone B. Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography, and histopathology in breast neoplasms. Eur Radiol 2003; 13:1207-12.
10. Moatamed NA, Apple SK. extensive sampling changes T-staging of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of breast: A comparative study of gross versus microscopic tumor sizes. Breast J 2006; 12(6):511-17.
11. Pritt B, Tessitore JJ, Weaver DL, Blaszyk H. The effect of tissue fixation and processing on breast cancer size. Human Pathol 2005; 36:756-60.