Measurement of tumour size in case selection for breast cancer therapy by clinical assessment and ultrasound

J. D. Snelling, Norlia Abdullah, G. Brown, D. M. King, E. Moskovic, Gerald P H Gui

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims. Clinical assessment of tumour size is often used to choose between mastectomy and primary medical therapy. Clinical and imaging modalities may have varying levels of accuracy across the range of tumour sizes. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of clinical measurement and ultrasound in discriminating palpable tumours up to 3 cm vs those greater than 3 cm. Methods. A prospective analysis of 111 consecutive patients with palpable breast cancer was performed. All women had clinical measurement by caliper and ultrasound assessment prior to any needle biopsy. Clinical measurement and ultrasound assessment of size were compared to pathological tumour size of the surgical specimen. Results. Both clinical and ultrasound measurement underestimate the size of larger tumours. The overall accuracy of clinical assessment and ultrasound examination in correctly identifying a 30 mm cut off was 70.3 and 77.5%, respectively. Ultrasound was significantly more accurate at determining the size of tumours < 30 mm (p = 0.007) but there was no significant difference between both modalities in assessing tumours greater than 30 mm. Conclusions. Ultrasound assessment of breast cancer size is more accurate than clinical assessment for tumours less than 30 mm. As clinical examination is as accurate on ultrasound for tumours greater than 30 mm, clinical assessment of tumour size alone is adequate to select patients for primary medical therapy or mastectomy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)5-9
Number of pages5
JournalEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Breast Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Mastectomy
Needle Biopsy

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Breast cancer size
  • Clinical assessment
  • Ultrasound assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Measurement of tumour size in case selection for breast cancer therapy by clinical assessment and ultrasound. / Snelling, J. D.; Abdullah, Norlia; Brown, G.; King, D. M.; Moskovic, E.; Gui, Gerald P H.

In: European Journal of Surgical Oncology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 02.2004, p. 5-9.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Snelling, J. D. ; Abdullah, Norlia ; Brown, G. ; King, D. M. ; Moskovic, E. ; Gui, Gerald P H. / Measurement of tumour size in case selection for breast cancer therapy by clinical assessment and ultrasound. In: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2004 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 5-9.
@article{c04fcfafa76b4aed96fa2c7449d03c72,
title = "Measurement of tumour size in case selection for breast cancer therapy by clinical assessment and ultrasound",
abstract = "Aims. Clinical assessment of tumour size is often used to choose between mastectomy and primary medical therapy. Clinical and imaging modalities may have varying levels of accuracy across the range of tumour sizes. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of clinical measurement and ultrasound in discriminating palpable tumours up to 3 cm vs those greater than 3 cm. Methods. A prospective analysis of 111 consecutive patients with palpable breast cancer was performed. All women had clinical measurement by caliper and ultrasound assessment prior to any needle biopsy. Clinical measurement and ultrasound assessment of size were compared to pathological tumour size of the surgical specimen. Results. Both clinical and ultrasound measurement underestimate the size of larger tumours. The overall accuracy of clinical assessment and ultrasound examination in correctly identifying a 30 mm cut off was 70.3 and 77.5{\%}, respectively. Ultrasound was significantly more accurate at determining the size of tumours < 30 mm (p = 0.007) but there was no significant difference between both modalities in assessing tumours greater than 30 mm. Conclusions. Ultrasound assessment of breast cancer size is more accurate than clinical assessment for tumours less than 30 mm. As clinical examination is as accurate on ultrasound for tumours greater than 30 mm, clinical assessment of tumour size alone is adequate to select patients for primary medical therapy or mastectomy.",
keywords = "Breast cancer, Breast cancer size, Clinical assessment, Ultrasound assessment",
author = "Snelling, {J. D.} and Norlia Abdullah and G. Brown and King, {D. M.} and E. Moskovic and Gui, {Gerald P H}",
year = "2004",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejso.2003.10.003",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "5--9",
journal = "European Journal of Surgical Oncology",
issn = "0748-7983",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measurement of tumour size in case selection for breast cancer therapy by clinical assessment and ultrasound

AU - Snelling, J. D.

AU - Abdullah, Norlia

AU - Brown, G.

AU - King, D. M.

AU - Moskovic, E.

AU - Gui, Gerald P H

PY - 2004/2

Y1 - 2004/2

N2 - Aims. Clinical assessment of tumour size is often used to choose between mastectomy and primary medical therapy. Clinical and imaging modalities may have varying levels of accuracy across the range of tumour sizes. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of clinical measurement and ultrasound in discriminating palpable tumours up to 3 cm vs those greater than 3 cm. Methods. A prospective analysis of 111 consecutive patients with palpable breast cancer was performed. All women had clinical measurement by caliper and ultrasound assessment prior to any needle biopsy. Clinical measurement and ultrasound assessment of size were compared to pathological tumour size of the surgical specimen. Results. Both clinical and ultrasound measurement underestimate the size of larger tumours. The overall accuracy of clinical assessment and ultrasound examination in correctly identifying a 30 mm cut off was 70.3 and 77.5%, respectively. Ultrasound was significantly more accurate at determining the size of tumours < 30 mm (p = 0.007) but there was no significant difference between both modalities in assessing tumours greater than 30 mm. Conclusions. Ultrasound assessment of breast cancer size is more accurate than clinical assessment for tumours less than 30 mm. As clinical examination is as accurate on ultrasound for tumours greater than 30 mm, clinical assessment of tumour size alone is adequate to select patients for primary medical therapy or mastectomy.

AB - Aims. Clinical assessment of tumour size is often used to choose between mastectomy and primary medical therapy. Clinical and imaging modalities may have varying levels of accuracy across the range of tumour sizes. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of clinical measurement and ultrasound in discriminating palpable tumours up to 3 cm vs those greater than 3 cm. Methods. A prospective analysis of 111 consecutive patients with palpable breast cancer was performed. All women had clinical measurement by caliper and ultrasound assessment prior to any needle biopsy. Clinical measurement and ultrasound assessment of size were compared to pathological tumour size of the surgical specimen. Results. Both clinical and ultrasound measurement underestimate the size of larger tumours. The overall accuracy of clinical assessment and ultrasound examination in correctly identifying a 30 mm cut off was 70.3 and 77.5%, respectively. Ultrasound was significantly more accurate at determining the size of tumours < 30 mm (p = 0.007) but there was no significant difference between both modalities in assessing tumours greater than 30 mm. Conclusions. Ultrasound assessment of breast cancer size is more accurate than clinical assessment for tumours less than 30 mm. As clinical examination is as accurate on ultrasound for tumours greater than 30 mm, clinical assessment of tumour size alone is adequate to select patients for primary medical therapy or mastectomy.

KW - Breast cancer

KW - Breast cancer size

KW - Clinical assessment

KW - Ultrasound assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0842302478&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0842302478&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejso.2003.10.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ejso.2003.10.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 14736515

AN - SCOPUS:0842302478

VL - 30

SP - 5

EP - 9

JO - European Journal of Surgical Oncology

JF - European Journal of Surgical Oncology

SN - 0748-7983

IS - 1

ER -