Differences between the clinical and histopathological tumor stages in breast cancer diagnosed using vacuum-assisted breast biopsy

Park,Hai‑Lin; Hong,Ji‑Sun; Chang,So  Yong; Huh,Jung  Yin; Shin,Ji  Eun; Kim,Ji‑Young; Shim,Jeong  Yun; Noh,Songmi

doi:10.3892/ol.2015.2945

Differences between the clinical and histopathological tumor stages in breast cancer diagnosed using vacuum-assisted breast biopsy

Authors:
- Hai‑Lin Park
- Ji‑Sun Hong
- So Yong Chang
- Jung Yin Huh
- Ji Eun Shin
- Ji‑Young Kim
- Jeong Yun Shim
- Songmi Noh
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Kangnam CHA Hospital, CHA University College of Medicine, Seoul 135‑080, Republic of Korea, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kangnam CHA Hospital, CHA University College of Medicine, Seoul 135‑080, Republic of Korea, Department of Pathology, Kangnam CHA Hospital, CHA University College of Medicine, Seoul 135‑080, Republic of Korea
Published online on: February 9, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.2945
Pages: 1662-1666

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to determine the difference between the clinical tumor stage (T stage) based on pre‑operative ultrasound and the histopathological T stage subsequent to surgery in vacuum‑assisted breast biopsy (VABB)‑diagnosed breast cancer. Tumor sizes measured ultrasonography (USG) and histologically were retrospectively calculated and analyzed using paired t‑tests in 209 patients diagnosed with breast cancer using VABB. The patients were classified into two groups, consisting of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI‑RADS) category 4a or below, who underwent complete resection by VABB, and BI‑RADS category 4b or above, who underwent incisional biopsy by VABB. The histopathological tumor size was found to be smaller compared with the USG‑determined size in 92.3% of pT1a, 75.5% of pT1b, 44.2% of pT1c, 47.7% of pT2 and 0% of pT3 cases. Furthermore, the histopathological tumor size was smaller compared with the USG‑determined size in 62.8% of cases classified as BI‑RADS category 3‑4a and in 53.7% of cases classified as BI‑RADS category 4b‑5. The smaller the primary tumor at the time of diagnosis by VABB, the higher the likelihood of pathological underestimation on post‑operative histopathological assessment compared to pre‑operative USG.

View Figures

View References

1	Veronesi U, Galimberti V, Zurrida S, Pigatto F, et al: Sentinel lymph node biopsy as an indicator for axillary dissection in early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 37:454–458. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Cowen D, Jacquemier J, Houvenaeghel G, et al: Local and distant recurrence after conservative management of ‘very low-risk’ breast cancer are dependent events: a 10-year follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 41:801–807. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	van Dongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS, et al: Factors influencing local relapse and survival and results of salvage treatment after breast-conserving therapy in operable breast cancer: EORTC trial 10801, breast conservation compared with mastectomy in TNM stage I and II breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 28A:801–805. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Carter CL, Allen C and Henson DE: Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 63:181–187. 1989. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J and Velasco JM: Correlating sonography, mammography, and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 182:351–354. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Fornage BD, Toubas O and Morel M: Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer. 60:765–771. 1987. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Choi KH, Bae JW, Lee JB and Koo BH: Clinical, mammographic, and ultrasonographic assessment of breast cancer sizes. J Korean Breast Cancer Soc. 2:167–173. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar
8	Fei SA: Breast masses. Mammographic and sonographic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am. 30:67–92. 1992.
9	Forouhi P, Walsh JS, Anderson TJ and Chetty U: Ultrasonography as a method of measuring breast tumour size and monitoring response to primary systemic treatment. Br J Surg. 81:223–225. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Clark GM: Integrating prognostic factors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 22:187–191. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Maehle BO and Skjaerven R: Prediction of prognosis in axillary lymph node positive breast cancer patients: a statistical study. Br J Surg. 71:459–462. 1984. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Dixon JM, Senbanjo RO, Anderson TJ, Forrest AP and Elton RA: Clinical assessment of tumour size in primary breast carcinoma. Clin Oncol. 10:117–121. 1984.PubMed/NCBI
13	Lambie RW, Hodgden D, Herman EM and Kopperman M: Sonomammographic detection of lobular carcinoma not demonstrated on xeromammography. J Clin Ultrasound. 11:495–497. 1983. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Warwick DJ, Smallwood JA, Guyer PB, Dewbury KC and Taylor I: Ultrasound mammography in the management of breast cancer. Br J Surg. 75:243–245. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Nishimura S, Matsusue S, Koizumi S and Kashihara S: Size of breast cancer on ultrasonography, cut-surface of resected specimen, and palpation. Ultrasound Med Bio. 14(Suppl 1): 139–142. 1988. View Article : Google Scholar
16	Pierie JP, Perre CI, Levert LM and de Hooge P: Clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasonography as methods of measuring the size of breast cancer: a comparison. The Breast. 7:247–250. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar
17	Hwang KT, Kim HY, Chung JK, et al: A comparative study between the preoperative diagnostic tumor size and the postoperative pathologic tumor size in patients with breast tumors. J Breast Cancer. 13:187–197. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
18	Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Rupa JD, Koster D, van Engelshoven JM and von Meyenfeldt MF: Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol. 48:285–292. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Meden H, Neues KP, Röben-Kämpken S and Kuhn W: A clinical, mammographic, sonographic and histologic evaluation of breast cancer. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 48:193–199. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Lee CS, Bong JG, Park JH, et al: The accuracy of the physical examination, mammography, and ultrasonography in the assessment of tumor size and axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer patients. J Korean Breast Cancer Soc. 6:87–94. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar