Breast and Tumour Volume Measurements in Breast Cancer Patients Using 3-D Automated Breast Volume Scanner Images

M Lagendijk, E L Vos, K P Ramlakhan, C Verhoef, A H J Koning, W van Lankeren, L B Koppert, M Lagendijk, E L Vos, K P Ramlakhan, C Verhoef, A H J Koning, W van Lankeren, L B Koppert

Abstract

Background: The resection volume in relation to the breast volume is known to influence cosmetic outcome following breast-conserving therapy. It was hypothesised that three-dimensional ultrasonography (3-D US) could be used to preoperatively assess breast and tumour volume and show high association with histopathological measurements.

Methods: Breast volume by the 3D-US was compared to the water displacement method (WDM), mastectomy specimen weight, 3-D MRI and three different calculations for breast volume on mammography. Tumour volume by the 3-D US was compared to the histopathological tumour volume and 3-D MRI. Relatedness was based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Bland-Altman plots were used to graphically display the agreement for the different assessment techniques. All measurements were performed by one observer.

Results: A total of 36 patients were included, 20 and 23 for the evaluation of breast and tumour volume (ductal invasive carcinomas), respectively. 3-D US breast volume showed 'excellent' association with WDM, ICC 0.92 [95% CI (0.80-0.97)]. 3-D US tumour volume showed a 'excellent' association with histopathological tumour volume, ICC 0.78 [95% CI (0.55-0.91)]. Bland-Altman plots showed an increased overestimation in lager tumour volumes measured by 3-D MRI compared to histopathological volume.

Conclusions: 3-D US showed a high association with gold standard WDM for the preoperative assessment of breast volume and the histopathological measurement of tumour volume. 3-D US is an patient-friendly preoperative available technique to calculate both breast volume and tumour volume. Volume measurements are promising in outcome prediction of intended breast-conserving treatment.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Mammographic determination of tumour volume [18]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mammographic determination of breast volume. a Breast volume as a elliptic shape [22]. b Breast volume as a circular cone [15, 17, 23]
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bland–Altman plots for breast volume with the mean difference (solid line) and limits of agreement (dotted line). BV = breast volume, WDM = water displacement method, US = ultrasound, Mx = mammography. a Mean difference (WDM − 3-D US) as a function of the volume ((WDM + 3-D US)/2). b Mean difference (WDM − 3-D MRI) as a function of the volume (WDM + 3-D MRI). c Mean difference (WDM − MxKalbhen) as a function of the volume ((WDM + MxKalbhen)/2)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Bland–Altman plots tumour volume with the mean difference (solid line) and limits of agreement (dotted line). TV = tumour volume, US = ultrasound. a Mean difference (PA − 3-D US) as a function of the volume ((PA + 3-D US)/2). b Mean difference (PA − 3-D MRI) as a function of the volume ((PA + 3-D MRI)/2)

References

    1. Bartelink H, Maingon P, Poortmans P, et al. Whole-breast irradiation with or without a boost for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer: 20-year follow-up of a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:47–56. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71156-8.
    1. Saadatmand S, Bretveld R, Siesling S, et al. Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173 797 patients. BMJ. 2015;351:h4901. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4901.
    1. Atisha D, Rushing C, Samsa G, et al. A National snapshot of satisfaction with breast cancer procedures. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:361–369. doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-4246-9.
    1. Volders JH, Haloua MH, Krekel NM, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance in breast-conserving surgery shows superiority in oncological outcome, long-term cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes: final outcomes of a randomized controlled trial (COBALT) Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017;43:649–657. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.004.
    1. Vos EL, Koning AH, Obdeijn IM, et al. Preoperative prediction of cosmetic results in breast conserving surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:178–184. doi: 10.1002/jso.23782.
    1. Xi W, Perdanasari AT, Ong Y, et al. Objective breast volume, shape and surface area assessment: a systematic review of breast measurement methods. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2014;38:1116–1130. doi: 10.1007/s00266-014-0412-5.
    1. Bulstrode N, Bellamy E, Shrotria S. Breast volume assessment: comparing five different techniques. The Breast. 2001;10(117–12):3.
    1. Kayar R, Civelek S, Cobanoglu M, et al. Five methods of breast volume measurement: a comparative study of measurements of specimen volume in 30 mastectomy cases. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 2011;5:43–52.
    1. Yip JM, Mouratova N, Jeffery RM, et al. Accurate assessment of breast volume: a study comparing the volumetric gold standard (direct water displacement measurement of mastectomy specimen) with a 3D laser scanning technique. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:135–141. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0b013e31820ebdd0.
    1. Losken A, Seify H, Denson DD, et al. Validating three-dimensional imaging of the breast. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54:471–476. doi: 10.1097/01.sap.0000155278.87790.a1.
    1. Clauser P, Londero V, Como G, et al. Comparison between different imaging techniques in the evaluation of malignant breast lesions: Can 3D ultrasound be useful? Radiol Med. 2014;119:240–248. doi: 10.1007/s11547-013-0338-z.
    1. Krekel NMA, Zonderhuis BM, Stockmann HBAC, et al. A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. EJSO. 2011;37(109–11):5.
    1. Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31:753–764. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(94)00480-3.
    1. Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, et al. The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC ‘boost vs. no boost’ trial. Radiother Oncol. 2000;55:219–232. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00210-3.
    1. Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson ARM, et al. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–1509. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4344.
    1. Chan SW, Chueng PY, Lam SH. Cosmetic outcome and percentage of breast volume excision in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery. World J Surg. 2010;34:1447–1452. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0278-x.
    1. Fung JK, Chan SW, Chiu AK, et al. Mammographic determination of breast volume by elliptical cone estimation. World J Surg. 2010;34:1442–1445. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0283-0.
    1. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Kriege M, Boetes C, et al. Hereditary breast cancer growth rates and its impact on screening policy. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:1610–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.02.034.
    1. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U. The automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases International. J Women’s Health. 2011;3:337–346.
    1. Baken L, van Gruting IMA, Steegers EAP, et al. Design and validation of a 3D virtual reality desktop system for sonographic length and volume measurements in early pregnancy evaluation. J Clin Ultrasound. 2015;43:164–170. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22207.
    1. Verwoerd-Dikkeboom CM, Koning AH, Hop WC, et al. Reliability of three-dimensional sonographic measurements in early pregnancy using virtual reality. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:910–916. doi: 10.1002/uog.5390.
    1. Kalbhen CL, McGill JJ, Fendley PM, et al. Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173:1643–1649. doi: 10.2214/ajr.173.6.10584814.
    1. Katariya RN, Forrest AP, Gravelle IH. Breast volumes in cancer of the breast. Br J Cancer. 1974;29:270–273. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1974.66.
    1. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6:284–290. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.
    1. Martins WP, Nastri CO. Interpreting reproducibility results for ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:479–480. doi: 10.1002/uog.13320.
    1. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–849. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2333031484.
    1. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370(485–49):2.
    1. Gruber IV, Rueckert M, Kagan KO, et al. Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:328. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-328.
    1. Behjatnia B, Sim J, Bassett LW, et al. Does size matter? Comparison study between MRI, gross, and microscopic tumor sizes in breast cancer in lumpectomy specimens. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2010;3:303–309.
    1. Vriens BE, de Vries B, Lobbes MB, et al. Ultrasound is at least as good as magnetic resonance imaging in predicting tumour size post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2016;52:67–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.10.010.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren