Title Usporedba veličine tumora dojke kod kontrastne mamografije i magnetske rezonancije Title (english) Comparison of breast tumor size in contrast mammography and magnetic resonance imaging Author Andrea Andreškić Mentor Petra Valković Zujić (mentor)Mentor Doris Šegota (komentor) Committee member Petra Valković Zujić (predsjednik povjerenstva)Committee member Lovro Tkalčić (član povjerenstva) Committee member Ivan Brumini (član povjerenstva) Granter University of Rijeka Defense date and country 2024-07-16, Croatia Scientific / art field, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTHCARE Abstract Uvod: Rak dojke predstavlja značajan javnozdravstveni problem zbog visoke smrtnosti među ženama. Rano otkrivanje i precizna procjena veličine tumora ključni su za uspješno liječenje. Efikasne metode dijagnostike omogućuju bolje planiranje terapije i potencijalno poboljšavaju ishode liječenja. U ovom su kontekstu, kontrastna mamografija (CEM) i magnetska rezonancija (MR) dvije metode oslikavanja dojki koje se koriste za procjenu veličine tumora.
Cilj istraživanja: Cilj je ovog istraživanja bio usporediti preciznost kontrastne mamografije (CEM) i magnetske rezonancije (MR) u procjeni veličine tumora dojke.
Materijali i metode: U istraživanje su uključene dvadeset i dvije pacijentice kod kojih se patohistološki potvrdila maligna lezija u dojci, a koje su prije operacije podvrgnute oslikavanju CEM-om i MR-om dojki. Podaci su prikupljeni i analizirani retrospektivno kako bi se utvrdila razlika u procijenjenoj veličini tumora između CEM-a i MR-a u odnosu na patohistološki nalaz. Analizom su obuhvaćeni slijedeći parametri: veličina tumora na CEM-u, na MR-u te na konačnom patohistološkom nalazu. Evidentirani su status estrogenskih receptora (ER), progesteronskih receptora (PR), indeks proliferacije Ki67, ekspresija HER2 receptora te status limfnih čvorova. U statističkoj obradi koristio se Pearsonov koeficijent korelacije za usporedbu različitih slikovnih modaliteta te statistička značajnost razlika uz pomoć t-testa.
Rezultati: Obje metode imaju tendenciju precjenjivanja veličine tumora u odnosu na konačnu, patohistološki određenu veličinu tumora. Statistički značajna razlika između veličina tumora određenih pomoću CEM-a i MR-a nije pronađena (p=0,08). Međutim, CEM je pokazao veću preciznost u određivanju veličine tumora u odnosu na PHD u usporedbi s MR-om. Ova otkrića sugeriraju da, iako su obje metode korisne za preoperativnu procjenu, postoji potreba za poboljšanjem njihove preciznosti u odnosu na PHD. Zaključak: Istraživanje je pokazalo da su i CEM i MR korisni alati za preoperativnu procjenu proširenosti raka dojke, no s tendencijom precjenjivanja veličine tumora. Obje metode komplementarne su te se nadopunjuju no u slučaju kontraindikacija za MR, može se koristiti CEM i obrnuto, čime se osigurava sveobuhvatan pristup preoperativnoj procjeni proširenosti raka dojke. Daljnja istraživanja su potrebna kako bi se optimizirali protokoli za precizno mjerenje tumora i smanjila varijabilnost među različitim slikovnim metodama u cilju bolje kliničke prakse i povoljnijih ishoda za pacijente.
Abstract (english) Introduction: Breast cancer represents a significant public health issue due to its high mortality rate among women. Early detection and precise assessment of tumor size are crucial for successful treatment. Effective diagnostic methods enable better therapy planning and potentially improve treatment outcomes. In this context, contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are two imaging methods used to assess breast tumor size.
Research objective: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of contrast- enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in assessing breast tumor size. Materials and Methods: The study included twenty – two patients with pathologically confirmed malignant breast lesions, who underwent preoperative breast imaging both CEM and MRI. Data were collected and analyzed retrospectively to determine the difference in estimated tumor size between CEM and MRI in relation to the pathological findings. The analysis covered the following parameters: tumor size on CEM, tumor size on MRI, and the final pathological tumor size; estrogen receptor (ER) status, progesterone receptor (PR) status, Ki67 proliferation indeks, HER2 receptor expression, and lymph node status were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficient was used for comparing different imaging modalities, and the statistical significance of differences were assessed using the t-test. Results: Both methods tend to overestimate tumor size compared to the final pathologically determined tumor size. No statistically significant difference was found between the tumor sizes determined by CEM and MRI (p=0.08). However, CEM showed greater accuracy in determining tumor size compared to the pathological findings than MRI. These findings suggest that, although both methods are useful for preoperative assessment, there is a need to improve their accuracy relative to pathological findings.
Conclusion: The study demonstrated that both CEM and MRI are valuable tools for preoperative assessment of breast cancer extent, though with a tendency to overestimate tumor size. The methods are complementary and can be used interchangeably in case of contraindications for MRI or CEM, ensuring a comprehensive approach to preoperative assessment of breast cancer extent. Further research is needed to optimize protocols for preciese tumor measurement and reduce variability among different imaging methods to achieve better clinical practice and more favorable patient outcomes.
Keywords
kontrastna mamografija (CEM)
magnetska rezonancija (MR)
procjena proširenosti
rak dojke
Keywords (english)
breast cancer
contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM)
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
staging
Language croatian URN:NBN urn:nbn:hr:184:742512 Study programme Title: Radiological Technology Type of resource Text File origin Born digital Access conditions Open access Terms of use Created on 2024-07-02 13:44:35
