Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens

Farnaz Dadmanesh, Xuemo Fan, Aditi Dastane, Mahul Amin, Shikha Bose

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context.-The size of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a significant predictor of local tumor recurrence and is used for selection of patients for conservative versus aggressive therapy. A standardized method for size assessment is lacking. Objective.-To evaluate 2 commonly used methods for measurement of DCIS extent: one based on the distribution of the lesion in sequential series of sections (mapping method) and the other on the number of sections with DCIS (block method). Design.-Ninety-eight consecutive cases of DCIS, measuring at least 1.0 cm, were retrieved from our files. All specimens were serially sectioned along the long axis. The size of DCIS was calculated for each case by 2 different methods: (1) mapping method (average thickness of each slice × number of consecutive slices with DCIS) and (2) block method (number of blocks with DCIS × 0.3 cm). Additional calculations were performed by using 0.35, 0.4, and 0.5 cm as multiplication factors for the block method in order to improve concordance. Results.-The block method underestimated the size in 71 cases (72%) by 4.5% to 81.3% (mean, 33%). Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improved concordance, while multiplying by 0.5 cm led to an overestimation of size. Conclusions.-Assessment of DCIS size by the block method is inaccurate and underestimates size in most cases (72%), with an average reduction of 33%. Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improves concordance. A standardized method for size estimation is necessary for effective patient management.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)26-30
Number of pages5
JournalArchives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Volume133
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Breast
Patient Selection

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Medical Laboratory Technology

Cite this

Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens. / Dadmanesh, Farnaz; Fan, Xuemo; Dastane, Aditi; Amin, Mahul; Bose, Shikha.

In: Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 133, No. 1, 01.01.2009, p. 26-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ced65d401f234c13b6e11ba72282f305,
title = "Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens",
abstract = "Context.-The size of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a significant predictor of local tumor recurrence and is used for selection of patients for conservative versus aggressive therapy. A standardized method for size assessment is lacking. Objective.-To evaluate 2 commonly used methods for measurement of DCIS extent: one based on the distribution of the lesion in sequential series of sections (mapping method) and the other on the number of sections with DCIS (block method). Design.-Ninety-eight consecutive cases of DCIS, measuring at least 1.0 cm, were retrieved from our files. All specimens were serially sectioned along the long axis. The size of DCIS was calculated for each case by 2 different methods: (1) mapping method (average thickness of each slice × number of consecutive slices with DCIS) and (2) block method (number of blocks with DCIS × 0.3 cm). Additional calculations were performed by using 0.35, 0.4, and 0.5 cm as multiplication factors for the block method in order to improve concordance. Results.-The block method underestimated the size in 71 cases (72{\%}) by 4.5{\%} to 81.3{\%} (mean, 33{\%}). Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improved concordance, while multiplying by 0.5 cm led to an overestimation of size. Conclusions.-Assessment of DCIS size by the block method is inaccurate and underestimates size in most cases (72{\%}), with an average reduction of 33{\%}. Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improves concordance. A standardized method for size estimation is necessary for effective patient management.",
author = "Farnaz Dadmanesh and Xuemo Fan and Aditi Dastane and Mahul Amin and Shikha Bose",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "133",
pages = "26--30",
journal = "Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "0003-9985",
publisher = "College of American Pathologists",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens

AU - Dadmanesh, Farnaz

AU - Fan, Xuemo

AU - Dastane, Aditi

AU - Amin, Mahul

AU - Bose, Shikha

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Context.-The size of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a significant predictor of local tumor recurrence and is used for selection of patients for conservative versus aggressive therapy. A standardized method for size assessment is lacking. Objective.-To evaluate 2 commonly used methods for measurement of DCIS extent: one based on the distribution of the lesion in sequential series of sections (mapping method) and the other on the number of sections with DCIS (block method). Design.-Ninety-eight consecutive cases of DCIS, measuring at least 1.0 cm, were retrieved from our files. All specimens were serially sectioned along the long axis. The size of DCIS was calculated for each case by 2 different methods: (1) mapping method (average thickness of each slice × number of consecutive slices with DCIS) and (2) block method (number of blocks with DCIS × 0.3 cm). Additional calculations were performed by using 0.35, 0.4, and 0.5 cm as multiplication factors for the block method in order to improve concordance. Results.-The block method underestimated the size in 71 cases (72%) by 4.5% to 81.3% (mean, 33%). Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improved concordance, while multiplying by 0.5 cm led to an overestimation of size. Conclusions.-Assessment of DCIS size by the block method is inaccurate and underestimates size in most cases (72%), with an average reduction of 33%. Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improves concordance. A standardized method for size estimation is necessary for effective patient management.

AB - Context.-The size of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a significant predictor of local tumor recurrence and is used for selection of patients for conservative versus aggressive therapy. A standardized method for size assessment is lacking. Objective.-To evaluate 2 commonly used methods for measurement of DCIS extent: one based on the distribution of the lesion in sequential series of sections (mapping method) and the other on the number of sections with DCIS (block method). Design.-Ninety-eight consecutive cases of DCIS, measuring at least 1.0 cm, were retrieved from our files. All specimens were serially sectioned along the long axis. The size of DCIS was calculated for each case by 2 different methods: (1) mapping method (average thickness of each slice × number of consecutive slices with DCIS) and (2) block method (number of blocks with DCIS × 0.3 cm). Additional calculations were performed by using 0.35, 0.4, and 0.5 cm as multiplication factors for the block method in order to improve concordance. Results.-The block method underestimated the size in 71 cases (72%) by 4.5% to 81.3% (mean, 33%). Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improved concordance, while multiplying by 0.5 cm led to an overestimation of size. Conclusions.-Assessment of DCIS size by the block method is inaccurate and underestimates size in most cases (72%), with an average reduction of 33%. Using 0.4 cm as the multiplication factor improves concordance. A standardized method for size estimation is necessary for effective patient management.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58349086029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58349086029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 133

SP - 26

EP - 30

JO - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

JF - Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

SN - 0003-9985

IS - 1

ER -