Factors Associated With Preoperative Radiological Tumor Size Underestimation in Clinical T1–2 Breast Cancer Patients

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Breast Journal Pub Date : 2026-06-26 DOI:10.1155/tbj/3726326
Jungbin Kim, Yujin Lee, Sam-Youl Yoon, Hyunjin Cho, Ye Young Seo, Ji-Young Kim, Young-Joo Shin, Kyeongmee Park, Geumhee Gwak
{"title":"Factors Associated With Preoperative Radiological Tumor Size Underestimation in Clinical T1–2 Breast Cancer Patients","authors":"Jungbin Kim,&nbsp;Yujin Lee,&nbsp;Sam-Youl Yoon,&nbsp;Hyunjin Cho,&nbsp;Ye Young Seo,&nbsp;Ji-Young Kim,&nbsp;Young-Joo Shin,&nbsp;Kyeongmee Park,&nbsp;Geumhee Gwak","doi":"10.1155/tbj/3726326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Accurate preoperative tumor size measurement is essential for determining optimal surgical margins in breast cancer patients. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with preoperative radiological tumor underestimation in clinical T (cT) Stage 1–2 breast cancer patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively reviewed the data of 365 cT1–2 breast cancer patients. Radiological tumor size was defined as the larger dimension on ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging. A pathological-to-radiological tumor size ratio &gt; 1.2 or a tumor size discrepancy (pathology minus radiology) ≥ 5 mm was considered indicative of radiological underestimation. Preoperative variables, including age, body mass index (BMI), cT stage, maximum standardized uptake value of tumor, molecular subtype, and histologic subtype and grade, were analyzed to identify associated factors. Tumor size discrepancy (pathology minus radiology) was compared across subgroups, and the difference between pathological and radiological tumor size measurements was evaluated in each subgroup.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A BMI ≥ 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (<i>p</i> = 0.006) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) histology (<i>p</i> = 0.030) were associated with a pathological-to-radiological tumor size ratio &gt; 1.2. A BMI ≥ 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (<i>p</i> = 0.015), ILC histology (<i>p</i> = 0.022), and cT stage (<i>p</i> = 0.027) were associated with a tumor size discrepancy (pathology minus radiology) ≥ 5 mm. Significant differences in tumor size discrepancy between patients with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> and those with a BMI &lt; 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (<i>p</i> = 0.003) and between patients with an ILC and those with non-ILC (<i>p</i> = 0.041) were observed. Bland–Altman analysis showed radiological underestimation in ILCs (4.3 mm).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In cT1–2 breast cancer patients, a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> and/or an ILC are predictive of radiological tumor underestimation, warranting supplemental imaging and intraoperative margin assessment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":56326,"journal":{"name":"Breast Journal","volume":"2026 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/tbj/3726326","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/tbj/3726326","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Accurate preoperative tumor size measurement is essential for determining optimal surgical margins in breast cancer patients. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the factors associated with preoperative radiological tumor underestimation in clinical T (cT) Stage 1–2 breast cancer patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 365 cT1–2 breast cancer patients. Radiological tumor size was defined as the larger dimension on ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging. A pathological-to-radiological tumor size ratio > 1.2 or a tumor size discrepancy (pathology minus radiology) ≥ 5 mm was considered indicative of radiological underestimation. Preoperative variables, including age, body mass index (BMI), cT stage, maximum standardized uptake value of tumor, molecular subtype, and histologic subtype and grade, were analyzed to identify associated factors. Tumor size discrepancy (pathology minus radiology) was compared across subgroups, and the difference between pathological and radiological tumor size measurements was evaluated in each subgroup.

Results

A BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.006) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) histology (p = 0.030) were associated with a pathological-to-radiological tumor size ratio > 1.2. A BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.015), ILC histology (p = 0.022), and cT stage (p = 0.027) were associated with a tumor size discrepancy (pathology minus radiology) ≥ 5 mm. Significant differences in tumor size discrepancy between patients with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 and those with a BMI < 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.003) and between patients with an ILC and those with non-ILC (p = 0.041) were observed. Bland–Altman analysis showed radiological underestimation in ILCs (4.3 mm).

Conclusion

In cT1–2 breast cancer patients, a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 and/or an ILC are predictive of radiological tumor underestimation, warranting supplemental imaging and intraoperative margin assessment.

Abstract Image

临床T1-2乳腺癌患者术前放射学肿瘤大小低估的相关因素
背景准确的术前肿瘤大小测量是确定乳腺癌患者最佳手术切缘的必要条件。因此,本研究旨在评估临床T (cT) 1-2期乳腺癌患者术前放射学肿瘤低估的相关因素。方法回顾性分析365例cT1-2乳腺癌患者的资料。放射学肿瘤大小定义为超声或磁共振成像上较大的尺寸。病理与放射学的肿瘤大小比值为1.2或肿瘤大小差异(病理减去放射学)≥5mm被认为是放射学低估的指示。术前变量包括年龄、身体质量指数(BMI)、cT分期、肿瘤最大标准化摄取值、分子亚型、组织学亚型和分级,分析相关因素。比较各亚组之间的肿瘤大小差异(病理减去放射学),并评估每个亚组中病理和放射学肿瘤大小测量的差异。结果BMI≥25 kg/m2 (p = 0.006)和浸润性小叶癌(ILC)组织学(p = 0.030)与病理与放射学肿瘤大小比>; 1.2相关。BMI≥25 kg/m2 (p = 0.015)、ILC组织学(p = 0.022)和cT分期(p = 0.027)与肿瘤大小差异(病理减去放射学)≥5 mm相关。BMI≥25 kg/m2与BMI≤25 kg/m2患者的肿瘤大小差异有统计学意义(p = 0.003), ILC与非ILC患者的肿瘤大小差异有统计学意义(p = 0.041)。Bland-Altman分析显示放射学低估了ILCs (4.3 mm)。结论在cT1-2乳腺癌患者中,BMI≥25kg /m2和/或ILC可预测放射学肿瘤低估,需要补充影像学检查和术中边缘评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Breast Journal
Breast Journal 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Breast Journal is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary source devoted exclusively to all facets of research, diagnosis, and treatment of breast disease. The Breast Journal encompasses the latest news and technologies from the many medical specialties concerned with breast disease care in order to address the disease within the context of an integrated breast health care. This editorial philosophy recognizes the special social, sexual, and psychological considerations that distinguish cancer, and breast cancer in particular, from other serious diseases. Topics specifically within the scope of The Breast Journal include: Risk Factors Prevention Early Detection Diagnosis and Therapy Psychological Issues Quality of Life Biology of Breast Cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书