Summary
Purpose
Breast cancers are three dimensional solids but very few are spherical. We hypothesized that calculations based on the greatest diameter would not accurately reflect tumor volume and that three dimensional measurements would affect tumor staging.Materials and methods: 165 invasive carcinomas measuring 2.5 cm or less and having three measured diameters (a ≥ b ≥ c) noted were evaluated. Tumor volume was calculated using four geometric models: the spherical 4/3π (a/2)3, prolate spheroid 4/3π (a/2) (c/2)2, oblate spheroid 4/3π (a/2)2 (b/2), and ellipsoid 4/3π (a/2 × b/2 × c/2). The ellipsoid correctly determined the volume for any tumor shape. All cases were stratified according to the TNM staging system. Differences in mean volume calculated as a sphere and ellipsoid for each tumor subclass were analyzed using Student's T test. The reclassification of tumors by the ellipsoid formula was determined.Results: Seventy-six (46.1%) had tumors with three different diameters while only six (3.6%) were true spheres having three identical diameters. Mean tumor volume analysis of T1a, T1b, T1c, and T2 tumors demonstrated a statistically significant overestimation of volume when utilizing the sphere formula instead of the ellipsoid formula (p < 0.05). The differences in volume were more dramatic as the diameters increased. A total of 41 tumors were moved into smaller T subclasses including 10 node positive patients.Conclusions: Tumor volume analysis demonstrates that use of only the greatest diameter poorly reflects the true volume of a lesion and consistently overestimates volume. The ellipsoid formula accurately calculates volume for these three dimensional tumors and when utilized has significant relevance to staging small invasive breast cancers.
References
McGuire WL, Clark GM: Prognostic factors and treatment decisions in axillary-node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 326: 1756–1761, 1992
Beahrs Oh, Henson DE, Hutter RVP et al. (eds): ‘Manual for Staging of Cancer’, 4th Ed. Philadelphia, PA; JB Lippincott, 1992
Haagensen CD:Diseases of the Breast. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia, PA; W.B. Saunders Company: 851–863, 1986
Silverstein MJ, Gierson ED, Waisman JR et al: Axillary lymph node dissection for T1a breast carcinoma. Cancer 73: 664–667, 1994
Heuser L, Spratt JS, Polk HD: Growth rates of primary breast cancers. Cancer 43: 1888–1894, 1979
Weber C, Merriam L, Koschitzky T et al.: Inhibition of growth of human breast carcinomasin vivo by somatostatin analog SMS 201-995: Treatment of nude mouse xenografts. Surgery 106: 416–422, 1989
CRC Standard Mathematical Tables, 25th ed. Beyerwitt (ed.) Boca Raton, FL; CRC Press: 149, 1978
Donegan WL, Spratt JS: Staging and primary treatment. In: Cancer of the Breast. Edward H. Wickland (ed.) W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA; 336–402, 1988
Atkinson EN, Brown BW, Montague ED: Tumor volume, nodal status, and metastasis in breast cancer in women. JNCI 76: 171–178, 1986
McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA et al.: Histologic differentiation, cancer volume, and pelvi lymph node metastasis in adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Cancer 66: 1225–1233, 1990
Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW et al.: Factors influencing prognosis in node-negative breast carcinoma; analysis of 767 T1N0M0/T2N0M0 patients with long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 11: 2090–2100, 1993
Seidman JD, Schnapper LA, Aisner SC: Relationship of the size of the invasive component of the primary breast carcinoma to axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer 75: 65–71, 1995
Norton L, Day R: Potential innovations in scheduling of cancer chemotherapy. In: De Vita VT Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds) Important Advances in Oncology 1991, Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott: 57–72, 1991
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wapnir, I.L., Wartenberg, D.E. & Greco, R.S. Three dimensional staging of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Tr 41, 15–19 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807032
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01807032