Skip to main content
. 2015 Dec 16;89(1058):20150581. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20150581

Table 3.

Comparing size assessed by micro-CT, mammography, ultrasound and MRI

Property studied Pathology Micro-CT Mammography Ultrasound MRI
Studied cases (%) 50 (100) 50 (100) 50 (100) 42 (84) 16 (32)
Tumour size (cm) (mean ± SD) 1.34 ± 0.63 1.42 ± 0.56 1.23 ± 0.80 1.25 ± 0.57 1.66 ± 0.67
Tumour size measurement
 Measured larger than pathology (%) / 23 (46) 18 (36) 14 (33) 8 (50)
 Measured smaller than pathology (%) / 18 (36) 28 (56) 26 (62) 6 (38)
Accuracy
 Accurate within 0.2 cm of pathology (%) / 40 (80) 24 (48) 14 (33) 7 (44)
 Accurate within 0.5 cm of pathology (%) / 44 (88) 35 (70) 33 (79) 13 (81)
 Accurate within 1 cm of pathology (%) / 49 (98) 46 (92) 42 (100) 15 (94)
Correlation coefficient
 Pathology (r) / 0.81 0.40 0.61 0.78
 Micro-CT (r) / / 0.54 0.60 0.86

SD, standard deviation.