Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026
Comparison of Three Different Methods for Determining Cell Proliferation in Breast Cancer Cell Lines
Published on: September 3, 2016
Assessment of breast cancer tumour size using six different methods
Martina Meier-Meitinger1, Lothar Häberle, Peter A Fasching
1Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Erlangen University Hospital, Erlangen, Germany. martina.meier-meitinger@uk-erlangen.de
Objectives:
Tumour size estimates using mammography (MG), conventional ultrasound (US), compound imaging (CI) and real-time elastography (RTE) were compared with histopathological specimen sizes.
Methods:
The largest diameters of 97 malignant breast lesions were measured. Two US and CI measurements were made: US1/CI1 (hypoechoic nucleus only) and US2/CI2 (hypoechoic nucleus plus hyperechoic halo). Measurements were compared with histopathological tumour sizes using linear regression and Bland-Altman plots.
Results:
Size prediction was best with ultrasound (US/CI/RTE: R (2) 0.31-0.36); mammography was poorer (R(2) = 0.19). The most accurate method was US2, while US1 and CI1 were poorest. Bland-Altman plots showed better size estimation with US2, CI2 and RTE, with low variation, while mammography showed greatest variability. Smaller tumours were better assessed than larger ones. CI2 and US2 performed best for ductal tumours and RTE for lobular cancers. Tumour size prediction accuracy did not correlate significantly with breast density, but on MG tumours were more difficult to detect in high-density tissue.
Conclusions:
The size of ductal tumours is best predicted with US2 and CI2, while for lobular cancers RTE is best. Hyperechoic tumour surroundings should be included in US and CI measurements and RTE used as an additional technique in the clinical staging process.
