Pre-operative estimation of primary breast cancer size: a comparison of clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasound

被引:18
作者
Allen, SA
Cunliffe, WJ
Gray, J
Liston, JE
Lunt, LG
Webb, LA
Young, JR
机构
[1] Queen Elizabeth Hosp, Breast Screening & Assessment Ctr, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear, England
[2] Univ Teesside, Ctr Hlth & Med Res, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, England
关键词
D O I
10.1054/brst.2000.0255
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
This prospective study aimed to determine which is the most precise modality for the pre-operative measurement of primary breast cancers: clinical palpation; mammography; or ultrasound. Analysis of the difference between the measurement of the maximum tumour diameter by these three modalities and by the histological measurement was performed in 210 cases. Clinical palpation tended to overestimate tumour size and gave the largest standard deviation of the difference. Ultrasound and mammography both gave a similar standard deviation of the difference, with ultrasound tending to underestimate tumour size. For all modalities, the standard deviation and the 95% confidence intervals of the difference increased with increasing tumour size. There is little difference between the precision of ultrasound and mammography in measuring tumour size. The wide 95% confidence intervals for any method of pre-operative tumour measurement should be considered when planning patient management. (C) 2001 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:299 / 305
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] CONSTRUCTION OF AGE-RELATED REFERENCE CENTILES USING ABSOLUTE RESIDUALS
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1993, 12 (10) : 917 - 924
  • [2] THE NOTTINGHAM-PROGNOSTIC-INDEX APPLIED TO 9,149 PATIENTS FROM THE STUDIES OF THE DANISH-BREAST-CANCER-COOPERATIVE-GROUP (DBCG)
    BALSLEV, I
    AXELSSON, CK
    ZEDELER, K
    RASMUSSEN, BB
    CARSTENSEN, B
    MOURIDSEN, HT
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1994, 32 (03) : 281 - 290
  • [3] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) : 307 - 310
  • [4] Ultrasound in breast carcinoma: what are we looking at? A sonographic/pathological correlation
    Blunt, DM
    Sansom, HE
    Nasiri, N
    Moskovic, EC
    [J]. BREAST, 1998, 7 (03) : 156 - 161
  • [5] BREAST-TUMORS - COMPARATIVE ACCURACY OF MR-IMAGING RELATIVE TO MAMMOGRAPHY AND US FOR DEMONSTRATING EXTENT
    BOETES, C
    MUS, RDM
    HOLLAND, R
    BARENTSZ, JO
    STRIJK, SP
    WOBBES, T
    HENDRIKS, JHCL
    RUYS, SHJ
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1995, 197 (03) : 743 - 747
  • [6] Davis P L, 1994, Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, V2, P623
  • [7] Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography
    Davis, PL
    Staiger, MJ
    Harris, KB
    Ganott, MA
    Klementaviciene, J
    McCarthy, KS
    Tobon, H
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 1996, 37 (01) : 1 - 9
  • [8] *DEP HLTH, 1997, NHSBSP HIST EQA SCHE
  • [9] DIXON JM, 1984, CLIN ONCOL, V10, P117
  • [10] Invasive breast cancer: Mammographic measurement
    Flanagan, FL
    McDermott, MB
    Barton, PT
    Pilgram, TK
    Dehdashti, F
    Wick, MR
    Monsees, BS
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 1996, 199 (03) : 819 - 823