RESUMEN
Introducción: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar qué prueba de imagen de las empleadas para medir el tamaño del cáncer de mama primario preoperatorio (mamografía, ecografía o resonancia magnética [RM]) se correlacionó mejor con el tamaño del tumor en la pieza quirúrgica postoperatoria. Métodos: Análisis retrospectivo de mujeres con diagnóstico de cáncer de mama y con indicación de tratamiento quirúrgico primario operadas desde enero del 2014 hasta diciembre del 2016. Se recogieron variables sociodemográficas, vinculadas a técnicas de imagen e histológicas. Los resultados se presentaron según edad, tamaño tumoral y tipo histológico. Resultados: Se estudió a 224 mujeres. Al comparar el tamaño mamográfico y de la RM con el histológico final no se encontraron diferencias significativas, tanto de forma global como teniendo en cuenta el grupo histológico o la edad, sin embargo, ambas infraestimaron significativamente los tumores grandes y sobrestimaron significativamente los pequeños. La ecografía infraestimó significativamente el tamaño del tumor, especialmente en tumores grandes, pacientes mayores y en los grupos de carcinoma ductal infiltrante (CDI) y CDI con carcinoma ductal in situ asociado (CDI + CDIS). La RM se correlacionó mejor con el tamaño tumoral histológico aunque sin diferencias estadísticamente significativas. Conclusiones: La RM parece ser el mejor predictor del tamaño del tumor en el cáncer de mama. El grupo histológico y el tamaño del tumor fueron claves en la estimación de la medida del tumor, por lo que se deben tener en cuenta en la planificación de la cirugía. La variable edad no interfirió en la interpretación de las imágenes
Introduction: The objective of this study was to determine which image test used to measure the size of pre-operative primary breast cancer (mammography, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) correlated best with the size of the tumor in the postoperative surgical specimen. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of women diagnosed with breast cancer for which primary surgical treatment was indicated and who underwent surgical intervention between January 2014 and December 2016. Sociodemographic, imaging and histological variables were collected. The results are presented by age group, tumor size and histological type. Results: In the 224 women studied, mammography and MRI tumor sizes were compared with pathology study tumor measurements, revealing no significant differences, both overall and based on histologic type or age. However, both significantly underestimated large tumors and significantly overestimated small tumors. Ultrasound significantly underestimated tumor size, especially in large tumors, older patients and in infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma with associated ductal carcinoma in situ (IDC + DCIS). MRI correlated best with histological tumor size, although with no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: MRI is the best predictor of tumor size in breast cancer. Histologic type and tumor size are key parameters when estimating tumor size and should be taken into account when planning surgery. Patient age does not interfere with the interpretation of imaging tests
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Factores de Edad , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Carcinoma in Situ/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma in Situ/patología , Carcinoma in Situ/cirugía , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Mamografía/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ultrasonografía/métodosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine which image test used to measure the size of pre-operative primary breast cancer (mammography, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) correlated best with the size of the tumor in the postoperative surgical specimen. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of women diagnosed with breast cancer for which primary surgical treatment was indicated and who underwent surgical intervention between January 2014 and December 2016. Sociodemographic, imaging and histological variables were collected. The results are presented by age group, tumor size and histological type. RESULTS: In the 224 women studied, mammography and MRI tumor sizes were compared with pathology study tumor measurements, revealing no significant differences, both overall and based on histologic type or age. However, both significantly underestimated large tumors and significantly overestimated small tumors. Ultrasound significantly underestimated tumor size, especially in large tumors, older patients and in infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma with associated ductal carcinoma in situ (IDC+DCIS). MRI correlated best with histological tumor size, although with no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: MRI is the best predictor of tumor size in breast cancer. Histologic type and tumor size are key parameters when estimating tumor size and should be taken into account when planning surgery. Patient age does not interfere with the interpretation of imaging tests.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Carcinoma in Situ/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma in Situ/patología , Carcinoma in Situ/cirugía , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/patología , Carcinoma Ductal de Mama/cirugía , Femenino , Humanos , Imagen por Resonancia Magnética/métodos , Mamografía/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ultrasonografía/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study reported here was to assess the disease-free survival and overall survival of patients with endometrial cancer and to determine independent factors affecting the prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of a single-center clinical series of 276 patients (mean age 64 years) with histologically confirmed cancer of the corpus uteri. The standard treatments were extrafascial total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with selective pelvic/para-aortic node dissection, according to risk for recurrence. Actuarial overall survival and disease-free survival were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to assess the prognostic significance of the different variables. RESULTS: The estimated median follow-up, determined using the inverse Kaplan-Meier method, was 45 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.2-48.8) for disease-free survival and 46 months (95% CI 43.0-49.0) for overall survival. The statistically significant variables affecting disease-free survival and overall survival were age, serous-papillary and clear-cell histological types, outer-half myometrial invasion, advanced International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, tumor grades G2 and G3, incomplete surgical resection, positive lymph nodes, lymphovascular space invasion, tumor remnants of >1 cm after surgery, and high-risk group. In the multivariate Cox regression model, predictors of tumor recurrence included advanced FIGO stage (hazard ratio [HR] 4.90, 95% CI 2.57-9.36, P < 0.001) and tumor grades G2 (HR 4.79, 95% CI 1.73-13.27, P = 0.003) and G3 (HR 7.56, 95% CI 2.75-20.73, P < 0.001). The same variables were also associated with a significantly higher risk of tumor-related mortality. CONCLUSION: FIGO stage and tumor grade were independent prognostic factors of disease-free survival and overall survival in endometrial cancer patients. Outcome was also influenced by histopathologic type, myometrial and lymphovascular space invasion, lymph-node involvement, age, and tumor remnants after surgery, although a larger study sample is probably needed to demonstrate the independent association of these variables with survival.