{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022447724477244774, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014452644526445265, 'mean_word_length': 5.114661654135339, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reproducibility of the assessment of tumor extent in the breast using multiple image modalities.

The accuracy of breast-conserving therapy (BCT) is limited by uncertainties in the assessment of tumor extent. These uncertainties may result in too wide treatment volumes leading to undesirable cosmetic results, or too narrow treatment volumes leading to higher probabilities of local recurrence. The aim of this study is to quantify the reproducibility of the assessment of tumor extent in the breast at preoperative diagnostic imaging with multiple imaging modalities and at pathology, applied to (1) determining minimum surgical safety margins to reduce the probability of underestimating the tumor extent due to uncertainty in the radiological assessment, and (2) defining the minimum difference between two measurements of tumor size that indicates a significant reduction of tumor extent in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Measurements of the largest tumor diameter in mammography, ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, and at pathology were retrieved, retrospectively, for 105 patients eligible for BCT. An analysis of variance technique is employed to separate uncertainty at preoperative diagnostic imaging from uncertainty at pathology. The random variations are thus calculated independently of the systematic deviations, avoiding the necessity to choose a gold standard. Moreover, the technique does not require repeat measurements of tumor extent, thus allowing the use of data that is obtained in daily clinical practice, while avoiding bias due to recollection. The magnitude of the random variations is used to determine minimum surgical safety margins and to define the minimum significant difference between two measurements of tumor size. The overall random variations in the assessment of tumor extent are on the order of 3 mm (1 s.d.) with only little differences of about 0.3 mm between the four techniques. The dependence of the random variations on tumor size was found significant (p < 0.05) for mammography (2.7 mm vs 4.2 mm, 1 s.d.) and ultrasonography (2.5 mm vs 3.8 mm, 1 s.d.) for tumors up to 17 mm compared to those that are larger. A minimum surgical safety margin on the order of 5 mm for tumors up to 17 mm and 7 mm for larger tumors takes the uncertainty in radiological assessment of the tumor extent into account effectively in 95% of the performed surgical procedures. A minimum difference in largest tumor diameter of 7 mm for tumors up to 17 mm and 9 mm for those that are larger indicates a significant (p < 0.05) reduction of tumor extent in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. The reproducibility of the assessment of tumor extent at preoperative diagnostic imaging is of comparable magnitude to the reproducibility at pathology. The uncertainty in the preoperative assessment of tumor extent constitutes a large portion (5-7 mm) of the current safety margin in breast-conserving surgery (10 mm). In monitoring response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or hormonal therapy using repeat imaging before and after treatment, the current clinical guidelines may produce approximately 10% false-positive responses for tumors between 20 and 30 mm.