Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia (Mar 2008)
Correlação entre o exame clínico, a mamografia e a ultra-sonografia com o exame anatomopatológico na determinação do tamanho tumoral no câncer de mama Correlation between clinical examination, mammography and ultrasonography with histopathological exam in the determination of tumor size in breast cancer
Abstract
OBJETIVO: avaliar qual o melhor método entre o exame clínico (EC), a mamografia (MMG) e a ultra-sonografia (US) na determinação pré-operatória do tamanho tumoral no câncer de mama, tendo como referência o exame anatomopatológico. MÉTODOS: foram incluídas neste estudo 184 pacientes com lesões mamárias detectadas por MMG e US, palpáveis ou não, e que foram submetidas a ressecção cirúrgica do tumor, com diagnóstico histopatológico de câncer de mama. O maior diâmetro tumoral foi avaliado por EC, MMG e US por um mesmo examinador, e a medida obtida por cada método foi correlacionada com o diâmetro máximo obtido pelo exame anatomopatológico. A análise comparativa foi feita por meio do coeficiente de correlação de Pearson (r). RESULTADOS: o coeficiente de correlação de Pearson encontrado entre o exame anatomopatológico e o EC foi 0,8; entre o exame anatomopatológico e a MMG foi 0,7 e entre o exame anatomopatológico e a US foi 0,7 (pPURPOSE: to evaluate which method is the best to determine pre-surgically the size of breast cancer: clinical examination, mammography or ultrasonography, using as a reference the anatomopathological exam. METHODS: this study has included 184 patients with palpable-or-not breast lesions, detected by mammography and ultrasonography, that were submitted to surgical resection of the tumor, with histopathological diagnosis of breast cancer. The same examiner evaluated clinically the largest tumoral diameter, through clinical examination, mammography and ultrasonography, and the measurements obtained by each method were correlated with the maximum diameter obtained by the anatomopathological exam. The comparative analysis has been done by Pearson's correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: Pearson's correlation coefficient between the anatomopathological and the clinical exams was 0.8; between the anatomopathological exam and the mammography, 0.7; and between anatomopathological exam and ultrasonography 0.7 (p<0.05). Pearson's correlation coefficients among the methods evaluated were also calculated and r=0.7 was obtained between clinical exam and mammography, r=0.8 between clinical examination and utrasonograhy, and r=0.8 between mammography and ultrasonography (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: clinical examination, mammography and ultrasonography have presented high correlation with the anatomopathological measures, besides high correlations among themselves, what seems to show that they may be used as equivalent methods in the pre-surgical evaluation of the breast tumoral size. Nevertheless, due to specific limitations of each method, clinical examination, mammography and ultrasonography should be seen as complementary to each other, in order to obtain a more accurate measurement of the breast cancer tumor.
