ArticleUltrasound (Leeds, England)2019
Factors affecting the concordance of radiologic and pathologic tumor size in breast carcinoma.
Article in Ultrasound (Leeds, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the effect of peritumoral surrounding parenchymal features on radiological size measurement in breast cancer patients: a multicenter retrospective study (TR-BRC 2023-01).Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Factors Associated With Preoperative Radiological Tumor Size Underestimation in Clinical T1-2 Breast Cancer Patients.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Tumor size and stage assessment accuracy of MRI and ultrasound versus pathological measurements in early breast cancer patients.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Correlation of preoperative sonographic staging and postoperative histopathologic staging in patients with invasive breast cancer.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- The Accuracy of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Tools.Cureus · 2024Article
- Clinicopathologic Features Predictive of Distant Metastasis in Patients Diagnosed With Invasive Breast Cancer.JCO global oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiologic assessment of tumor size is an integral part of the work-up for breast carcinoma. With improved radiologic equipment, surgical decision relies profoundly upon radiologic/clinical stage. We wanted to see the concordance between radiologic and pathologic tumor size to infer how accurate radiologic/clinical staging is. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe surgical pathology and ultrasonography reports of patients with breast carcinoma were reviewed. Data were collected for 406 cases. Concordance was defined as a size difference within ±2 mm.
resultsThe difference between radiologic and pathologic tumor size was within ±2 mm in 40.4% cases. The mean radiologic size was 1.73 ± 1.06 cm. The mean pathologic size was 1.84 ± 1.24 cm. A paired
conclusionMean pathologic tumor size was significantly different from mean radiologic tumor size. Concordance was in just over 40% of cases and the stage classification was the same in about 60% of cases only. Therefore, surgical decision of lumpectomy versus mastectomy based on radiologic tumor size may not always be accurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.