Literature DB >> 25835079

Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation.

Eda Elverici1, Ayşe Nurdan Barça, Hafize Aktaş, Arzu Özsoy, Betül Zengin, Mehtap Çavuşoğlu, Levent Araz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate ultrasonography (US) findings for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 lesions using BI-RADS US lexicon and determine the positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) of US with respect to biopsy results.
METHODS: Sonograms of 186 BI-RADS 4 nonpalpable breast lesions with a known diagnosis were reviewed retrospectively. The morphologic features of all lesions were described using BI-RADS lexicon and the lesions were subcategorized into 4A, 4B, and 4C on the basis of the physician's level of suspicion. Lesion descriptors and biopsy results were correlated. Pathologic results were compared with US features. PPVs of BI-RADS subcategories 4A, 4B, and 4C were calculated.
RESULTS: Of 186 lesions, 38.7% were malignant and 61.2% were benign. PPVs according to subcategories 4A, 4B, and 4C were 19.5%, 41.5%, and 74.3%, respectively. Microlobulated, indistinct, and angular margins, posterior acoustic features, and echo pattern were nonspecific signs for nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 lesions. Typical signs of malignancy were irregular shape (PPV, 66%), spiculated margin (PPV, 80%) and nonparallel orientation (PPV, 58.9%). Typical signs of benign lesions were oval shape (NPV, 77.1%), circumscribed margin (NPV, 67.5%), parallel orientation (NPV, 70%), and abrupt interface (NPV, 67.6%).
CONCLUSION: BI-RADS criteria are not sufficient for discriminating between malignant and benign lesions, and biopsy is required. Subcategories 4A, 4B, and 4C are useful in predicting the likelihood of malignancy. However, objective and clear subclassification rules are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25835079      PMCID: PMC4463260          DOI: 10.5152/dir.2014.14103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  13 in total

1.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.

Authors:  Andrea S Hong; Eric L Rosen; Mary S Soo; Jay A Baker
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon.

Authors:  Melania Costantini; Paolo Belli; Roberta Lombardi; Gianluca Franceschini; Antonino Mulè; Lorenzo Bonomo
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  BIRADS ultrasonography.

Authors:  L Levy; M Suissa; J F Chiche; G Teman; B Martin
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Hye-Jeong Lee; Eun-Kyung Kim; Min Jung Kim; Ji Hyun Youk; Ji Young Lee; Dae Ryong Kang; Ki Keun Oh
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification.

Authors:  M Costantini; P Belli; C Ierardi; G Franceschini; G La Torre; L Bonomo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography.

Authors:  Eun-Kyung Kim; Kyung Hee Ko; Ki Keun Oh; Jin Young Kwak; Jai Kyung You; Min Jung Kim; Byoung-Woo Park
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Clinical implications of subcategorizing BI-RADS 4 breast lesions associated with microcalcification: a radiology-pathology correlation study.

Authors:  Mary Ann Sanders; Lane Roland; Sunati Sahoo
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2009-11-19       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Accuracy of classification of breast ultrasound findings based on criteria used for BI-RADS.

Authors:  J Heinig; R Witteler; R Schmitz; L Kiesel; J Steinhard
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 7.299

10.  BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome.

Authors:  Sughra Raza; Sona A Chikarmane; Sarah S Neilsen; Lisa M Zorn; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  18 in total

1.  Does patient age affect the PPV3 of ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound categories 4 and 5 in the diagnostic setting?

Authors:  Yue Hu; Yaping Yang; Ran Gu; Liang Jin; Shiyu Shen; Fengtao Liu; Hongli Wang; Jingsi Mei; Xiaofang Jiang; Qiang Liu; Fengxi Su
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  [Value of ultrasonic S-Detect technique in diagnosis of breast masses].

Authors:  Y Cheng; Q Xia; J Wang; H Xie; Y Yu; H Liu; Z Yao; J Hu
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2022-07-20

Review 3.  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

4.  Prospective assessment of adjunctive ultrasound-guided diffuse optical tomography in women undergoing breast biopsy: Impact on BI-RADS assessments.

Authors:  Steven P Poplack; Catherine A Young; Ian S Hagemann; Jingqin Luo; Cheryl R Herman; Kimberly Wiele; Shuying Li; Yifeng Zeng; Matthew F Covington; Quing Zhu
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2021-11-13       Impact factor: 4.531

5.  BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: could multi-mode ultrasound be helpful for their diagnosis?

Authors:  Gang Liu; Meng-Ke Zhang; Yan He; Yuan Liu; Xi-Ru Li; Zhi-Li Wang
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2019-06

6.  The diagnostic performance of ultrasound computer-aided diagnosis system for distinguishing breast masses: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Qi Wei; Yu-Jing Yan; Ge-Ge Wu; Xi-Rong Ye; Fan Jiang; Jie Liu; Gang Wang; Yi Wang; Juan Song; Zhi-Ping Pan; Jin-Hua Hu; Chao-Ying Jin; Xiang Wang; Christoph F Dietrich; Xin-Wu Cui
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  A new nomogram for predicting the malignant diagnosis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasonography category 4A lesions in women with dense breast tissue in the diagnostic setting.

Authors:  Yaping Yang; Yue Hu; Shiyu Shen; Xiaofang Jiang; Ran Gu; Hongli Wang; Fengtao Liu; Jingsi Mei; Jing Liang; Haixia Jia; Qiang Liu; Chang Gong
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-07

8.  Mammography breast density: an effective supplemental modality for the precise grading of ultrasound BI-RADS 4 categories.

Authors:  Wei-Min Li; Qiu-Wei Sun; Xiao-Fang Fan; Jun-Chao Zhang; Ting Xu; Qi-Qi Shen; Lei Jia
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-06

9.  The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of malignant non-mass breast lesions and exploration of diagnostic criteria.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Lifang Jin; Gang Li; Chao Jia; Qiusheng Shi; Lianfang Du; Rong Wu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  The Vascular Index of Superb Microvascular Imaging Can Improve the Diagnostic Accuracy for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 4 Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Si-Man Cai; Hong-Yan Wang; Xiao-Yan Zhang; Li Zhang; Qing-Li Zhu; Jian-Chu Li; Qiang Sun; Yu-Xin Jiang
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-03-11       Impact factor: 3.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.