ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2021
Accurate Estimation of Breast Tumor Size: A Comparison Between Ultrasonography, Mammography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Associated Contributing Factors.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Main factors associated with variability in the assessment of the objective response rate. A re-analysis of the PHEREXA phase 3 clinical trial.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Trial
- Preoperative Overestimation of Disease Extent and Discordance-Driven Mastectomy: A Retrospective Review of 245 Cases.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Rethinking Preoperative MRI in Early Breast Cancer: Who Truly Benefits?European journal of breast health · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
- 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
- Clinicopathological Factors Affecting Positive Margins after Breast-Conserving Surgery: A Comparative Study of Low- and High-Volume Hospitals.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Personalizing Tumor Size Assessment in Breast Cancer-A Framework for Dynamic, Patient-Centered Estimation.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Sizing It Up: Concordance between Breast Imaging and Pathologically Determined Tumor Measurement.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A Low-Cost Optomechatronic Diffuse Optical Mammography System for 3D Image Reconstruction: Proof of Concept.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prognosis of patients with breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery using a 3D-printed surgical guide after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Construction of a nomogram prediction model for the pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a study based on ultrasound and clinicopathological features.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Correlation of preoperative sonographic staging and postoperative histopathologic staging in patients with invasive breast cancer.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Applying the SOUND Trial for Omitting Axillary Surgery in Patients With Early Breast Cancer in Bahrain.European journal of breast health · 2024Article
- Improving Lesion Location Reproducibility in Handheld Breast Ultrasound.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography for assessing breast cancer tumor size-comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- Machine Learning to Predict the Need for Postmastectomy Radiotherapy after Immediate Breast Reconstruction.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- The Accuracy of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Tools.Cureus · 2024Article
- Nanoparticle-Based Techniques for Bladder Cancer Imaging: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
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
objectiveThis study aimed to provide further evidence on the accuracy of tumor size estimates and influencing factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, patients with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of breast cancer referred to our hospital to obtain a preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Data from 76 breast cancer patients with 84 lesions were collected. All participants underwent ultrasonography and MRI, and their mammograms (MGMs) were reevaluated for tumor size estimation. Measurements by the three imaging modalities were compared with the pathologically determined tumor size to assess their accuracy. Influencing factors such as surgical management, molecular and histopathological subtypes, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System enhancement types in MRI were also assessed.
resultsThe rates of concordance with the gold standard were 64.3%, 76.2%, and 82.1% for MGM, ultrasound (US), and MRI measurements, respectively. Therefore, the highest concordance rate was observed in MRI-based estimates. Among the discordant cases, US and MGM underestimation were more prevalent (70%); nevertheless, MRI showed significant overestimation (80%). Tumor size estimates in patients whose MRIs presented with either non-mass enhancement [p=0.030; odds ratio (OR)=17.2; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-225.9] or mass lesion with non-mass enhancement (p=0.001; OR=51.0; 95% CI: 5.0-518.4) were more likely to be discordant with pathological measurements compared with those in cases with only mass lesion on their MRIs.
conclusionMRI was more accurate than either US or MGM in estimating breast tumor size but had the highest overestimation rate. Therefore, caution should be practiced in interpreting data obtained from subjects whose MRIs present with non-mass enhancement or mass lesion with non-mass enhancement.
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.