Literature DB >> 23962417

Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial.

Richard G Barr1, Zheng Zhang, Jean B Cormack, Ellen B Mendelson, Wendie A Berg.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate predefined breast ultrasonographic (US) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 criteria in a multicenter setting in an elevated-risk population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 database was reviewed for prospectively defined BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Patient characteristics, lesion US features at initial detection, and work-up recommendations were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were given, where appropriate. Lesion reference standard was biopsy or a minimum of 1-year follow-up. In addition, malignancy rate for lesions that had at least 2 years of follow-up data or that had biopsy data was calculated.
RESULTS: Of 2662 participants, 519 (19.5%) had 745 BI-RADS category 3 lesions (25.5% of 2916 US lesions other than simple cysts), with a median size of 7 mm (range, 2-135 mm). The number of new BI-RADS category 3 lesions decreased with year 2-3 screening, but the percentage of new BI-RADS category 3 lesions was stable at 26.4% (506 of 1920 lesions), 23.6% (142 of 601 lesions), and 24.6% (97 of 395 lesions), respectively. Of 745 BI-RADS category 3 lesions, 124 (16.6%) were ultimately sampled for biopsy. Six malignancies (0.8% of BI-RADS category 3 lesions; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3%, 1.7%) occurred in five (1.0%) of 519 participants: Five malignancies were invasive (median size, 10 mm; size range, 2-18 mm), and one was node positive. When the analysis is limited to lesions with at least 2-year follow-up or biopsy, the malignancy rate among BI-RADS category 3 lesions is 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3%, 2.0%). Three malignant BI-RADS category 3 lesions were sampled for biopsy because of a suspicious change at follow-up (two N0 lesions, one each at 6- and 12-month follow-up; one N1 lesion at 24-month follow-up), one was sampled for biopsy because of an upgrade after additional mammography (NX), one was found at mastectomy for another cancer (N0), and one was found at prophylactic contralateral mastectomy in the same patient (NX).
CONCLUSION: As BI-RADS category 3 lesions have a low malignancy rate (0.8%; 95% CI: 0.3%, 1.7%) and only 0.1% of the cancers had suspicious changes at 6-month follow-up and only one (17%; 95% CI: 0.4%, 64%) of six malignancies were node positive at detection (24-month follow-up), a recommendation of 1-year diagnostic follow-up may be appropriate for BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected at screening US. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23962417      PMCID: PMC4228709          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122829

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  56 in total

1.  Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions.

Authors:  Ferris M Hall
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography.

Authors:  I Vizcaíno; L Gadea; L Andreo; D Salas; F Ruiz-Perales; D Cuevas; C Herranz; F Bueno
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography.

Authors:  X Varas; F Leborgne; J H Leborgne
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.

Authors:  Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Mary Pettinger; Rowan T Chlebowski; John A Robbins; Dorothy S Lane; Susan L Hendrix
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Solid breast masses diagnosed as fibroadenoma at fine-needle aspiration biopsy: acceptable rates of growth at long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Paula B Gordon; Faith A Gagnon; Leora Lanzkowsky
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers: bilateral whole-breast US in the preoperative evaluation of patients.

Authors:  Woo Kyung Moon; Dong-Young Noh; Jung-Gi Im
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density.

Authors:  Isabelle Leconte; Chantal Feger; Christine Galant; Martine Berlière; Bruno Vande Berg; William D'Hoore; Baudouin Maldague
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

Authors:  Thomas M Kolb; Jacob Lichy; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.

Authors:  Ximena Varas; José H Leborgne; Francisco Leborgne; Julieta Mezzera; Sylvia Jaumandreu; Felix Leborgne
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  24 in total

1.  Can unenhanced breast MRI be used to decrease negative biopsy rates?

Authors:  Sibel Kul; Şükrü Oğuz; İlker Eyüboğlu; Özlem Kömürcüoğlu
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.630

2.  Growing BI-RADS category 3 lesions on follow-up breast ultrasound: malignancy rates and worrisome features.

Authors:  Su Min Ha; Eun Young Chae; Joo Hee Cha; Hee Jung Shin; Woo Jung Choi; Hak Hee Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Michael K O'Connor; James P Moriarty; Judy C Boughey; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Reducing Unnecessary Biopsy and Follow-up of Benign Cystic Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Can Cut-Off-Values for Tumor Size or Patient Age in Breast Ultrasound Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies or is it all About Bi-rads?- A Retrospective Analysis of 763 Biopsied T1-Sized Lesions.

Authors:  Laura Holzer-Fruehwald; Matthias Meissnitzer; Michael Weber; Stephan Holzer; Klaus Hergan; Christian Weismann
Journal:  Ultrasound Int Open       Date:  2017-09-01

6.  Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  BI-RADS 3 on Screening Breast Ultrasound: What Is It and What Is the Appropriate Management?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2021-08-15

8.  Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: consider annual follow-up.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-04-24       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Incidence of Adjacent Synchronous Invasive Carcinoma and/or Ductal Carcinoma In-situ in Patients with Lobular Neoplasia on Core Biopsy: Results from a Prospective Multi-Institutional Registry (TBCRC 020).

Authors:  Faina Nakhlis; Lauren Gilmore; Rebecca Gelman; Isabelle Bedrosian; Kandice Ludwig; E Shelley Hwang; Shawna Willey; Clifford Hudis; J Dirk Iglehart; Elizabeth Lawler; Nicole Y Ryabin; Mehra Golshan; Stuart J Schnitt; Tari A King
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 10.  Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.