Tumor size and focality in breast carcinoma: Analysis of concordance between radiological imaging modalities and pathological examination at a cancer center

Abstract

ContextAccurate assessment of clinical and pathological tumor stage is crucial for patient treatment and prognosis. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the concordance between the tumor size and focality between radiological studies and pathology and to evaluate the impact of discrepancies on staging. DesignPatients who underwent surgery for invasive breast carcinoma from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, were identified. ResultsThree imaging modalities (mammogram, ultrasound and MRI) were compared with gross examination and final pathology. 1152 preoperative radiological studies were evaluated for focality and 1019 were evaluated for tumor size. For all 3 radiographic modalities, there was a statistically significant difference between the mean tumor size on radiology and the final pathology report (mammogram, P < .001; ultrasound, P = .004; MRI, P < .001). In 29% of radiology studies, there was a discrepancy in stage. The error rate for determining focality was 28% for mammograms, 27% for ultrasounds, and 29% for MRIs. Tumor size from gross examination correlated with microscopic tumor size in 57% of cases, but gross examination had 88% concordance with the final pathology report in determining focality. ConclusionOur study revealed statistically significant differences in mean tumor size reported across all 3 imaging modalities when compared to the final pathology report. MRI had the highest error rate, with a tendency to overestimate tumor size and number of foci. Among all diagnoses, cases of invasive carcinoma with an extensive intraductal component were most prone to discrepancies with imaging.