Development of MRI Projection Mapping System for Breast-Conserving Surgery in the Operating Room: Preliminary Clinical Results in Invasive Breast Cancer

Table 1

Assessment of invasive breast cancer by projection mapping, conventional method, and pathology.

Patient		Breast cancer					PM procedure			Breast conserving surgery		Maximum diameter of invasive part(mm)
No.	Age (y/0)	Side	Inner/outer	Histology and grade	TN classification	Additional lesions	Slope	Incidence angle (degree)	Rigid marker	Margin (mm)	Margin involvement	Pathology	Conventional method	PM method	Discrepancy
1	66	Right	Inner	IDC gr2	T1cN0	DCIS	No	0	Match	10	Negative	15	12	14	3
2	62	Right	Inner	IDC gr2	T2N1a	—	No	0	Match	10	Negative	25	24	20	5
3	60	Left	Inner	IDC gr2	T1cN0		No	0	Match	10	Negative	18	15	15	3
4	53	Left	Outer	IDC gr1	T1bN0	DCIS	Yes	5	Match	15	Negative	8	16	12	5
5	60	Left	Inner	IDC gr1	T1bN0	—	No	0	Mismatch	15	Negative	8	—	NA	NA
6	36	Left	Inner	IDC gr3	T1cN0	DCIS	No	0	Match	15	DCIS	18	20	16	4
7	70	Left	Outer	IDC gr2	T2N0		Yes	5	Mismatch	NA	Negative	32	35	NA	NA
8	45	Left	Inner	IDC gr3	T2N0	—	No	0	Match	15	Negative	25	24	24	4
9	45	Left	Inner	IDC gr1	T1bN0	—	No	0	Match	15	Negative	7	9	8	4
10	59	Right	Outer	IDC gr2	T1bN0	DCIS	Yes	20	Match	10	DCIS	6	14	10	8

PM: projection mapping; US: ultrasound; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ. Patients who could not compete the PM procedure because of human errors. Discrepancies in cancer location were defined as the maximum distance between the edge of the invasive cancer drawn by these two methods.