PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic significance of the breast volume in primary breast cancer patients with the same T stage.
Methods
The study population consisted of 358 patients with T1 and T2 primary breast cancer, who underwent preoperative mammography and surgery in our institution from March 1992 to December 2006. The patients were divided into three groups based on the calculated breast volume as the following: Group A: <285 cc (n=117), Group B: 285-460 cc (n=121) and Group C: ≥460 cc (n=120). Overall survival (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) of the patients in the three groups in each T stage were analyzed.
Results
The mean age was 46.3 years (age range, 22-85 years) and the mean calculated breast volume was 403.1 cc (volume range, 94-1,231 cc). As the age of patients was increased, the breast volume was increased (r=0.184, p<0.001). With a mean follow up period of 80.8 months, there was no significant difference in DFS or OS among patients in Groups A, B, and C (p>0.05). For patients with T1 stage disease, Group A patients showed the highest DFS and OS, and patients in Group C showed the lowest DFS and OS; however, the difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05). For patients with T2 disease, patients in Group C showed the highest DFS and OS, though the difference with the two other groups did not have statistical significance (p>0.05).
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
The breast volume is calculated by use of the formula for the volume of a half-elliptic cylinder as derived from a craniocaudal view from a mammogram.
C=compression thickness; H=posterior-to-anterior height; W=medial-to-lateral width.
Figure 2
Bivariate correlation analysis between breast volume (as determined by mammogram) and patient's age (A) and body mass index (B). (A) There was only a weak correlation between breast volume and patient's age. (B) There was a strong correlation between breast volume and body mass index.
Figure 3
Disease-free survival and overall survival curve according to breast volume. There were no significant survival differences.
Figure 4
Disease-free survival and overall survival curve of T1 (A, B) and T2 (C, D) breast cancer patients according to breast volume. There were no significant survival differences in all subgroups.
Table 3
p-values of breast volume related overall survival rate and disease free survival rate in patients with normal range of body mass index
References
1. Hoe AL, Mullee MA, Royle GT, Guyer PB, Taylor I. Breast size and prognosis in early breast cancer. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1993. 75:18–22.
2. Kato I, Beinart C, Bleich A, Su S, Kim M, Toniolo PG. A nested case-control study of mammographic patterns, breast volume, and breast cancer (New York City, NY, United States). Cancer Causes Control. 1995. 6:431–438.
3. Scutt D, Manning JT, Whitehouse GH, Leinster SJ, Massey CP. The relationship between breast asymmetry, breast size and the occurrence of breast cancer. Br J Radiol. 1997. 70:1017–1021.
4. Hsieh CC, Trichopoulos D. Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk. Eur J Cancer. 1991. 27:131–135.
5. Wynder EL, Bross IJ, Hirayama T. A study of the epidemiology of cancer of the breast. Cancer. 1960. 13:559–601.
6. Kusano AS, Trichopoulos D, Terry KL, Chen WY, Willett WC, Michels KB. A prospective study of breast size and premenopausal breast cancer incidence. Int J Cancer. 2006. 118:2031–2034.
7. Morimoto LM, White E, Chen Z, Chlebowski RT, Hays J, Kuller L, et al. Obesity, body size, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: the Women's Health Initiative (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2002. 13:741–751.
8. Vatten LJ, Kvinnsland S. Body height and risk of breast cancer. a prospective study of 23,831 Norwegian women. Br J Cancer. 1990. 61:881–885.
9. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995. 87:1622–1629.
10. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989. 63:181–187.
11. Hilsenbeck SG, Ravdin PM, de Moor CA, Chamness GC, Osborne CK, Clark GM. Time-dependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998. 52:227–237.
12. Fisher B, Slack NH. Number of lymph nodes examined and the prognosis of breast carcinoma. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1970. 131:79–88.
13. Crowe JP Jr, Gordon NH, Hubay CA, Shenk RR, Zollinger RM, Brumberg DJ, et al. Estrogen receptor determination and long term survival of patients with carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991. 173:273–278.
14. Contesso G, Mouriesse H, Friedman S, Genin J, Sarrazin D, Rouesse J. The importance of histologic grade in long-term prognosis of breast cancer: a study of 1,010 patients, uniformly treated at the Institut Gustave-Roussy. J Clin Oncol. 1987. 5:1378–1386.
15. Fisher ER, Sass R, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Project for Breast Cancers (protocol no. 4). X. Discriminants for tenth year treatment failure. Cancer. 1984. 53:3 Suppl. 712–723.
16. Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Libby A, Allred DC, Elledge RM. Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol. 1999. 17:1442–1448.
17. Nixon AJ, Neuberg D, Hayes DF, Gelman R, Connolly JL, Schnitt S, et al. Relationship of patient age to pathologic features of the tumor and prognosis for patients with stage I or II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1994. 12:888–894.
18. Andrulis IL, Bull SB, Blackstein ME, Sutherland D, Mak C, Sidlofsky S, et al. Toronto Breast Cancer Study Group. neu/erbB-2 amplification identifies a poor-prognosis group of women with node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998. 16:1340–1349.
19. Lesar M, Stanec M, Banovic M. Significance of the relative size of a breast tumor in deciding the method of surgical treatment. Tumori. 2006. 92:18–20.
20. Katariya RN, Forrest AP, Gravelle IH. Breast volumes in cancer of the breast. Br J Cancer. 1974. 29:270–273.
21. Hyndman RJ, Fan Y. Sample quantiles in statistical packages. Am Stat. 1996. 50:361–365.
22. Scutt D, Lancaster GA, Manning JT. Breast asymmetry and predisposition to breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2006. 8:R14.
23. Fowler PA, Casey CE, Cameron GG, Foster MA, Knight CH. Cyclic changes in composition and volume of the breast during the menstrual cycle, measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990. 97:595–602.
24. Riedl CC, Ponhold L, Flöry D, Weber M, Kroiss R, Wagner T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007. 13:6144–6152.
25. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R, Poisson R, Pilch Y, Redmond C, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1985. 312:665–673.
26. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, Margolese R, Wolmark N, Wickerham L, et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1989. 320:822–828.
27. Vitucci C, Tirelli C, Graziano F, Santoro E. Results of conservative surgery for limited-sized infiltrating breast cancer: analysis of 962 tested patients: 24 years of experience. J Surg Oncol. 2000. 74:108–115.
28. Bulstrode N, Bellamy E, Shrotria S. Breast volume assessment: comparing five different techniques. Breast. 2001. 10:117–123.
29. Kalbhen CL, McGill JJ, Fendley PM, Corrigan KW, Angelats J. Mammographic determination of breast volume: comparing different methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999. 173:1643–1649.
XML Download