Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide further evidence on the accuracy of tumor size estimates and influencing factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, patients with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of breast cancer referred to our hospital to obtain a preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Data from 76 breast cancer patients with 84 lesions were collected. All participants underwent ultrasonography and MRI, and their mammograms (MGMs) were reevaluated for tumor size estimation. Measurements by the three imaging modalities were compared with the pathologically determined tumor size to assess their accuracy. Influencing factors such as surgical management, molecular and histopathological subtypes, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System enhancement types in MRI were also assessed. RESULTS: The rates of concordance with the gold standard were 64.3%, 76.2%, and 82.1% for MGM, ultrasound (US), and MRI measurements, respectively. Therefore, the highest concordance rate was observed in MRI-based estimates. Among the discordant cases, US and MGM underestimation were more prevalent (70%); nevertheless, MRI showed significant overestimation (80%). Tumor size estimates in patients whose MRIs presented with either non-mass enhancement p=0.030; odds ratio (OR)=17.2; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-225.9 or mass lesion with non-mass enhancement (p=0.001; OR=51.0; 95% CI: 5.0-518.4) were more likely to be discordant with pathological measurements compared with those in cases with only mass lesion on their MRIs. CONCLUSION: MRI was more accurate than either US or MGM in estimating breast tumor size but had the highest overestimation rate. Therefore, caution should be practiced in interpreting data obtained from subjects whose MRIs present with non-mass enhancement or mass lesion with non-mass enhancement.
Azhdeh et al. (Mon,) studied this question.