ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2020
Tumor size estimation of the breast cancer molecular subtypes using imaging techniques.
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concordance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Measured Tumor Size with the Pathological Gold Standard: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis by Molecular Subtype and Breast Density.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Factors Associated With Preoperative Radiological Tumor Size Underestimation in Clinical T1-2 Breast Cancer Patients.The breast journal · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-based tumor size measurement on mammography: agreement with pathology and comparison with human readers' assessments across multiple imaging modalities.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography for assessing breast cancer tumor size-comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging.Gland surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIn medical practice the classification of breast cancer is most commonly based on the molecular subtypes, in order to predict the disease prognosis, avoid over-treatment, and provide individualized cancer management. Tumor size is a major determiner of treatment planning, acting on the decision-making process, whether to perform breast surgery or administer neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Imaging methods play a key role in determining the tumor size in breast cancers at the time of the diagnosis.We aimed to compare the radiologically determined tumor sizes with the corresponding pathologically determined tumor sizes of breast cancer at the time of the diagnosis, in correlation with the molecular subtypes.
methodsNinety-one patients with primary invasive breast cancer were evaluated. The main molecular subtypes were luminal A, luminal B, HER-2 positive, and triple-negative. The Bland-Altman plot was used for presenting the limits of agreement between the radiologically and the pathologically determined tumor sizes by the molecular subtypes.
resultsA significantly proportional underestimation was found for the luminal A subtype, especially for large tumors. The p-values for the magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasonography were 0.020, 0.030, and <0.001, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed among the radiologic modalities in determining the tumor size in the remaining molecular subtypes (p>0.05).
conclusionThe radiologically determined tumor size was significantly smaller than the pathologically determined tumor size in the luminal A subtype of breast cancers when measured with all three imaging modalities. The differences were more prominent with ultrasonography and mammography. The underestimation rate increases as the tumor gets larger.
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.