Loading…

Pitfall in assessing the size of tumor phantoms on mammograms

Tumor size is crucial for clinical management and prognosis of breast malignancies. The gold standard-size of 12 tumor phantoms was assessed at The Department of Production Engineering. Subsequently, with a conventional ruler, seven experienced mammographers measured the largest diameter of the 12 d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anticancer research 2013-03, Vol.33 (3), p.1131-1134
Main Authors: Rubio, Carlos A, Svane, Gunilla, Ilescu, Gabriela, Adalsteinsson, Börkur, Mathiesen, Toomas, Tholin, Maria, Machida, Minoru, Cervantes, Eugenia Colon, Mattsson, Lars, Azavedo, Edward
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 1134
container_issue 3
container_start_page 1131
container_title Anticancer research
container_volume 33
creator Rubio, Carlos A
Svane, Gunilla
Ilescu, Gabriela
Adalsteinsson, Börkur
Mathiesen, Toomas
Tholin, Maria
Machida, Minoru
Cervantes, Eugenia Colon
Mattsson, Lars
Azavedo, Edward
description Tumor size is crucial for clinical management and prognosis of breast malignancies. The gold standard-size of 12 tumor phantoms was assessed at The Department of Production Engineering. Subsequently, with a conventional ruler, seven experienced mammographers measured the largest diameter of the 12 devices in two independent trials. In the first trial, 30% (n=25) of the 84 values given by the seven mammographers failed to recreate the gold standard size by >1 mm and in the second, by 37% (31/84). Size was overestimated (>1 mm) in 9.5% (n=8) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 15.5% (14/84) in the second. Conversely, size was underestimated (>1 mm) in 20% (n=17) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 21% (18/84) in the second. Neither the age of the participants, nor their years of experience improved the obtained results. The method used here raised doubts concerning the ability of discriminating size among subgroups of T1 breast tumors in mammograms. According to the TNM staging system, T1 tumors (≤2.0 cm in greatest dimension) are subdivided into T1mic: microinvasion (≤0.1 cm), T1a (>0.1 cm but not more than 0.5 cm), T1b (>0.5 cm but not more than 1.0 cm) and T1c (>1.0 cm but not more than 2.0 cm in their greatest dimension). Since the TNM staging system for breast tumors is important in therapeutic decision making, it is crucial to develop a more reliable method for tumor size assessment.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_530841</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1317405678</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p287t-d2d43319e85ad3930f1adb06fe1d54844e3db21e902d50c936ec844d68aa5e893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EoqXwF5CPXCL5lcQ-cKjKU6oEB-BqOfWmNY3jEDtC8OsJakGcOO1o9tuRZg_QlJaKZmXOyeEfPUEnMb4SUhRK8mM0YVxINi6n6PLRpdo0DXYtNjFCjK5d47QBHN0n4FDjNPjQ425j2hR8xKHF3ngf1r3x8RQdjccRzvZzhp5vrp8Wd9ny4fZ-MV9mHZNlyiyzgnOqQObGcsVJTY2tSFEDtbmQQgC3FaOgCLM5WSlewGp0bSGNyUEqPkPZLje-QzdUuuudN_2HDsbpvbUdFeixqxT0X_7Kvcx16Nd6mzaaMirK7_yLHd_14W2AmLR3cQVNY1oIQ9SU01KQvCjliJ7v0aHyYH-jf17KvwBlfnOJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1317405678</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pitfall in assessing the size of tumor phantoms on mammograms</title><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Rubio, Carlos A ; Svane, Gunilla ; Ilescu, Gabriela ; Adalsteinsson, Börkur ; Mathiesen, Toomas ; Tholin, Maria ; Machida, Minoru ; Cervantes, Eugenia Colon ; Mattsson, Lars ; Azavedo, Edward</creator><creatorcontrib>Rubio, Carlos A ; Svane, Gunilla ; Ilescu, Gabriela ; Adalsteinsson, Börkur ; Mathiesen, Toomas ; Tholin, Maria ; Machida, Minoru ; Cervantes, Eugenia Colon ; Mattsson, Lars ; Azavedo, Edward</creatorcontrib><description>Tumor size is crucial for clinical management and prognosis of breast malignancies. The gold standard-size of 12 tumor phantoms was assessed at The Department of Production Engineering. Subsequently, with a conventional ruler, seven experienced mammographers measured the largest diameter of the 12 devices in two independent trials. In the first trial, 30% (n=25) of the 84 values given by the seven mammographers failed to recreate the gold standard size by &gt;1 mm and in the second, by 37% (31/84). Size was overestimated (&gt;1 mm) in 9.5% (n=8) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 15.5% (14/84) in the second. Conversely, size was underestimated (&gt;1 mm) in 20% (n=17) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 21% (18/84) in the second. Neither the age of the participants, nor their years of experience improved the obtained results. The method used here raised doubts concerning the ability of discriminating size among subgroups of T1 breast tumors in mammograms. According to the TNM staging system, T1 tumors (≤2.0 cm in greatest dimension) are subdivided into T1mic: microinvasion (≤0.1 cm), T1a (&gt;0.1 cm but not more than 0.5 cm), T1b (&gt;0.5 cm but not more than 1.0 cm) and T1c (&gt;1.0 cm but not more than 2.0 cm in their greatest dimension). Since the TNM staging system for breast tumors is important in therapeutic decision making, it is crucial to develop a more reliable method for tumor size assessment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1791-7530</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0250-7005</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1791-7530</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23482791</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Greece</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Breast ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; mammograms ; Mammography ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasm Staging ; Phantoms, Imaging ; tumor phantoms ; tumor size</subject><ispartof>Anticancer research, 2013-03, Vol.33 (3), p.1131-1134</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23482791$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-121479$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:126428818$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rubio, Carlos A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svane, Gunilla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilescu, Gabriela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adalsteinsson, Börkur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathiesen, Toomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tholin, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machida, Minoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cervantes, Eugenia Colon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattsson, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azavedo, Edward</creatorcontrib><title>Pitfall in assessing the size of tumor phantoms on mammograms</title><title>Anticancer research</title><addtitle>Anticancer Res</addtitle><description>Tumor size is crucial for clinical management and prognosis of breast malignancies. The gold standard-size of 12 tumor phantoms was assessed at The Department of Production Engineering. Subsequently, with a conventional ruler, seven experienced mammographers measured the largest diameter of the 12 devices in two independent trials. In the first trial, 30% (n=25) of the 84 values given by the seven mammographers failed to recreate the gold standard size by &gt;1 mm and in the second, by 37% (31/84). Size was overestimated (&gt;1 mm) in 9.5% (n=8) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 15.5% (14/84) in the second. Conversely, size was underestimated (&gt;1 mm) in 20% (n=17) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 21% (18/84) in the second. Neither the age of the participants, nor their years of experience improved the obtained results. The method used here raised doubts concerning the ability of discriminating size among subgroups of T1 breast tumors in mammograms. According to the TNM staging system, T1 tumors (≤2.0 cm in greatest dimension) are subdivided into T1mic: microinvasion (≤0.1 cm), T1a (&gt;0.1 cm but not more than 0.5 cm), T1b (&gt;0.5 cm but not more than 1.0 cm) and T1c (&gt;1.0 cm but not more than 2.0 cm in their greatest dimension). Since the TNM staging system for breast tumors is important in therapeutic decision making, it is crucial to develop a more reliable method for tumor size assessment.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>mammograms</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasm Staging</subject><subject>Phantoms, Imaging</subject><subject>tumor phantoms</subject><subject>tumor size</subject><issn>1791-7530</issn><issn>0250-7005</issn><issn>1791-7530</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EoqXwF5CPXCL5lcQ-cKjKU6oEB-BqOfWmNY3jEDtC8OsJakGcOO1o9tuRZg_QlJaKZmXOyeEfPUEnMb4SUhRK8mM0YVxINi6n6PLRpdo0DXYtNjFCjK5d47QBHN0n4FDjNPjQ425j2hR8xKHF3ngf1r3x8RQdjccRzvZzhp5vrp8Wd9ny4fZ-MV9mHZNlyiyzgnOqQObGcsVJTY2tSFEDtbmQQgC3FaOgCLM5WSlewGp0bSGNyUEqPkPZLje-QzdUuuudN_2HDsbpvbUdFeixqxT0X_7Kvcx16Nd6mzaaMirK7_yLHd_14W2AmLR3cQVNY1oIQ9SU01KQvCjliJ7v0aHyYH-jf17KvwBlfnOJ</recordid><startdate>20130301</startdate><enddate>20130301</enddate><creator>Rubio, Carlos A</creator><creator>Svane, Gunilla</creator><creator>Ilescu, Gabriela</creator><creator>Adalsteinsson, Börkur</creator><creator>Mathiesen, Toomas</creator><creator>Tholin, Maria</creator><creator>Machida, Minoru</creator><creator>Cervantes, Eugenia Colon</creator><creator>Mattsson, Lars</creator><creator>Azavedo, Edward</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8V</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130301</creationdate><title>Pitfall in assessing the size of tumor phantoms on mammograms</title><author>Rubio, Carlos A ; Svane, Gunilla ; Ilescu, Gabriela ; Adalsteinsson, Börkur ; Mathiesen, Toomas ; Tholin, Maria ; Machida, Minoru ; Cervantes, Eugenia Colon ; Mattsson, Lars ; Azavedo, Edward</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p287t-d2d43319e85ad3930f1adb06fe1d54844e3db21e902d50c936ec844d68aa5e893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>mammograms</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasm Staging</topic><topic>Phantoms, Imaging</topic><topic>tumor phantoms</topic><topic>tumor size</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rubio, Carlos A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svane, Gunilla</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilescu, Gabriela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adalsteinsson, Börkur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathiesen, Toomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tholin, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Machida, Minoru</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cervantes, Eugenia Colon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mattsson, Lars</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azavedo, Edward</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan</collection><jtitle>Anticancer research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rubio, Carlos A</au><au>Svane, Gunilla</au><au>Ilescu, Gabriela</au><au>Adalsteinsson, Börkur</au><au>Mathiesen, Toomas</au><au>Tholin, Maria</au><au>Machida, Minoru</au><au>Cervantes, Eugenia Colon</au><au>Mattsson, Lars</au><au>Azavedo, Edward</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pitfall in assessing the size of tumor phantoms on mammograms</atitle><jtitle>Anticancer research</jtitle><addtitle>Anticancer Res</addtitle><date>2013-03-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1131</spage><epage>1134</epage><pages>1131-1134</pages><issn>1791-7530</issn><issn>0250-7005</issn><eissn>1791-7530</eissn><abstract>Tumor size is crucial for clinical management and prognosis of breast malignancies. The gold standard-size of 12 tumor phantoms was assessed at The Department of Production Engineering. Subsequently, with a conventional ruler, seven experienced mammographers measured the largest diameter of the 12 devices in two independent trials. In the first trial, 30% (n=25) of the 84 values given by the seven mammographers failed to recreate the gold standard size by &gt;1 mm and in the second, by 37% (31/84). Size was overestimated (&gt;1 mm) in 9.5% (n=8) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 15.5% (14/84) in the second. Conversely, size was underestimated (&gt;1 mm) in 20% (n=17) of 84 measurements in the first trial, and in 21% (18/84) in the second. Neither the age of the participants, nor their years of experience improved the obtained results. The method used here raised doubts concerning the ability of discriminating size among subgroups of T1 breast tumors in mammograms. According to the TNM staging system, T1 tumors (≤2.0 cm in greatest dimension) are subdivided into T1mic: microinvasion (≤0.1 cm), T1a (&gt;0.1 cm but not more than 0.5 cm), T1b (&gt;0.5 cm but not more than 1.0 cm) and T1c (&gt;1.0 cm but not more than 2.0 cm in their greatest dimension). Since the TNM staging system for breast tumors is important in therapeutic decision making, it is crucial to develop a more reliable method for tumor size assessment.</abstract><cop>Greece</cop><pmid>23482791</pmid><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1791-7530
ispartof Anticancer research, 2013-03, Vol.33 (3), p.1131-1134
issn 1791-7530
0250-7005
1791-7530
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_530841
source EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Adult
Aged
Breast
Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
Female
Humans
Male
mammograms
Mammography
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Phantoms, Imaging
tumor phantoms
tumor size
title Pitfall in assessing the size of tumor phantoms on mammograms
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T02%3A07%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pitfall%20in%20assessing%20the%20size%20of%20tumor%20phantoms%20on%20mammograms&rft.jtitle=Anticancer%20research&rft.au=Rubio,%20Carlos%20A&rft.date=2013-03-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1131&rft.epage=1134&rft.pages=1131-1134&rft.issn=1791-7530&rft.eissn=1791-7530&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E1317405678%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p287t-d2d43319e85ad3930f1adb06fe1d54844e3db21e902d50c936ec844d68aa5e893%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1317405678&rft_id=info:pmid/23482791&rfr_iscdi=true