OBJECTIVES: To develop a prediction model for breast cancer based on common mammographic findings on screening mammograms aiming to reduce reader variability in assigning BI-RADS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 352 positive screening mammograms of women participating in the Dutch screening programme (Nijmegen region, 2006-2008). The following mammographic findings were assessed by consensus reading of three expert radiologists: masses and mass density, calcifications, architectural distortion, focal asymmetry and mammographic density, and BI-RADS. Data on age, diagnostic workup and final diagnosis were collected from patient records. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to build a breast cancer prediction model, presented as a nomogram. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed in 108 cases (31 %). The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was found for spiculated masses (96 %) and the lowest for well-defined masses (10 %). Characteristics included in the nomogram are age, mass, calcifications, architectural distortion and focal asymmetry. CONCLUSION: With our nomogram we developed a tool assisting screening radiologists in determining the chance of malignancy based on mammographic findings. We propose cutoff values for assigning BI-RADS in the Dutch programme based on our nomogram, which will need to be validated in future research. These values can easily be adapted for use in other screening programmes. KEY POINTS: • There is substantial reader variability in assigning BI-RADS in mammographic screening. • There are no strict guidelines linking mammographic findings to BI-RADS categories. • We developed a model (nomogram) predicting the presence of breast cancer. • Our nomogram is based on common findings on positive screening mammograms. • The nomogram aims to assist screening radiologists in assigning BI-RADS categories.
OBJECTIVES: To develop a prediction model for breast cancer based on common mammographic findings on screening mammograms aiming to reduce reader variability in assigning BI-RADS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 352 positive screening mammograms of women participating in the Dutch screening programme (Nijmegen region, 2006-2008). The following mammographic findings were assessed by consensus reading of three expert radiologists: masses and mass density, calcifications, architectural distortion, focal asymmetry and mammographic density, and BI-RADS. Data on age, diagnostic workup and final diagnosis were collected from patient records. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to build a breast cancer prediction model, presented as a nomogram. RESULTS:Breast cancer was diagnosed in 108 cases (31 %). The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was found for spiculated masses (96 %) and the lowest for well-defined masses (10 %). Characteristics included in the nomogram are age, mass, calcifications, architectural distortion and focal asymmetry. CONCLUSION: With our nomogram we developed a tool assisting screening radiologists in determining the chance of malignancy based on mammographic findings. We propose cutoff values for assigning BI-RADS in the Dutch programme based on our nomogram, which will need to be validated in future research. These values can easily be adapted for use in other screening programmes. KEY POINTS: • There is substantial reader variability in assigning BI-RADS in mammographic screening. • There are no strict guidelines linking mammographic findings to BI-RADS categories. • We developed a model (nomogram) predicting the presence of breast cancer. • Our nomogram is based on common findings on positive screening mammograms. • The nomogram aims to assist screening radiologists in assigning BI-RADS categories.
Authors: Jonathan J James; Fiona J Gilbert; Matthew G Wallis; Maureen G C Gillan; Susan M Astley; Caroline R M Boggis; Olorunsola F Agbaje; Adam R Brentnall; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tracy Onega; Megan Smith; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta A Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert D Rosenberg; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse; Melissa L Anderson; Bonnie Yankaskas Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Aruna Venkatesan; Philip Chu; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Rebecca Smith-Bindman Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elizabeth S Burnside; Jie Liu; Yirong Wu; Adedayo A Onitilo; Catherine A McCarty; C David Page; Peggy L Peissig; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Terrie Kitchner; Jun Fan; Ming Yuan Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: U C Lalji; C R L P N Jeukens; I Houben; P J Nelemans; R E van Engen; E van Wylick; R G H Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; L E Paulis; M B I Lobbes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-03-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kawthar Al-Ajmi; Artitaya Lophatananon; Martin Yuille; William Ollier; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 2.506