Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Surg Oncol. 2013 Oct 28;109(2):158–167. doi: 10.1002/jso.23470

TABLE II.

Results from Univariate Linear Regression Models for Prediction of MRI Diagnostic Accuracy Based on the Absolute Difference Between MRI and Pathological Residual Tumor Size

Number of
subject
MRI-pathology tumor
size difference (cm)
Regression model
coefficient of determination
Regression model
slope parameter

Clinical and tumor characteristic N (%) Mean ± Stdev R2 P-value
Tumor type 0.16436 <0.0001
 IDC N = 85 (87%) 0.69 ± 1.20
 ILC and mixed N = 13 (13%) 3.07 ± 4.13
Tumor morphology 0.08448 0.0039
 Mass lesion N = 74 (76%) 0.69 ± 1.00
 Non-mass-like N = 23 (24%) 2.06 ± 3.59
Tumor grade 0.0385 0.0541
 4–7 (low–medium) N = 60 (62%) 1.32 ± 2.44
 8–9 (high) N = 37 (38%) 0.51 ± 0.79
Hormonal receptor 0.05961 0.0154
 Positive N = 57 (58%) 1.42 ± 2.49
 Negative N = 41 (42%) 0.43 ± 0.68
HER-2 receptor 0.07846 0.0055
 Positive N = 40 (41%) 0.34 ± 0.50
 Negative N = 57 (59%) 1.48 ± 2.50
MR scanner 0.04395 0.0383
 1.5 T N = 51 (52%) 0.60 ± 1.48
 3.0 T N = 47 (48%) 1.44 ± 2.39
Chemotherapy regimen 0.01281 0.2672
 AC + Taxane N = 63 (64%) 0.83 ± 2.16
 Taxane without AC N = 35 (36%) 1.31 ± 1.66
Days to operation 0.00249 0.6259
 0–30 days N = 43 (44%) 0.89 ± 2.22
 >30 days N = 55 (56%) 1.09 ± 1.84