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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Anticancer research 2013-03, Vol.33 (3), p.1131-1134 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
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 >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.</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 >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.</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 >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.</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 |