Literature DB >> 28879346

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.

Laura Holzer-Fruehwald1, Matthias Meissnitzer2, Michael Weber1, Stephan Holzer3, Klaus Hergan2, Christian Weismann2.   

Abstract

AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether it is possible to establish a size cut-off-value for sonographically visible breast lesions in a screening situation, under which it is justifiable to obviate a biopsy and to evaluate the grayscale characteristics of the identified lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Images of sonographically visible and biopsied breast lesions of 684 patients were retrospectively reviewed and assessed for the following parameters: size, shape, margin, lesion boundary, vascularity, patient's age, side of breast, histological result, and initial BI-RADS category. Statistical analyses (t-test for independent variables, ROC analyses, binary logistic regression models, cross-tabulations, positive/negative predictive values) were performed using IBM SPSS (Version 21.0).
RESULTS: Of all 763 biopsied lesions, 223 (29.2%) showed a malignant histologic result, while 540 (70.8%) were benign. Although we did find a statistically significant correlation of malignancy and lesion size (p=0.031), it was not possible to define a cut-off value, under which it would be justifiable to obviate a biopsy in terms of sensitivity and specificity (AUC: 0.558) at any age. Lesions showing the characteristics of a round or oval shape, a sharp delineation and no echogenic rim (n=112) were benign with an NPV of 99.1%.
CONCLUSION: It is not possible to define a cut-off value for size or age, under which a biopsy of a sonographically visible breast lesion can be obviated in the screening situation. The combination of the 3 grayscale characteristics, shape (round or oval), margin (circumscribed) and no echogenic-rim sign, showed an NPV of 99.1%. Therefore, it seems appropriate to classify such lesions as BI-RADS 2.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3D ultrasound; biopsy; breast

Year:  2017        PMID: 28879346      PMCID: PMC5585955          DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-110476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Int Open        ISSN: 2199-7152


  18 in total

1.  Breast ultrasound: new frontiers in imaging?

Authors:  C F Weismann
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 7.299

2.  Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment.

Authors:  J A Baker; P J Kornguth; M S Soo; R Walsh; P Mengoni
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?

Authors:  Oswald Graf; Thomas H Helbich; Gottfried Hopf; Claudia Graf; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  BI-RADS update.

Authors:  Cecilia L Mercado
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.303

7.  Likelihood of malignancy in breast lesions characterised by ultrasound with a combined diagnostic score.

Authors:  E Baez; K Strathmann; M Vetter; H Madjar; B-J Hackelöer
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  Sonobreast: predicting individualized probabilities of malignancy in solid breast masses with echographic expression.

Authors:  Régis Resende Paulinelli; Ruffo Freitas-Junior; Clécio Ênio Murta de Lucena; Marise Amaral Rebouças Moreira; Vardeli Alves de Moraes; Júlio Roberto Macedo Bernardes-Júnior; Célio da Silva Rocha Vidal; Alessandro Naldi Ruiz; Miliana Tostes Lucato; Nayara Gomes Silveira da Costa; Danilo Augusto Teixeira
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  S R C Benson; J Blue; K Judd; J E Harman
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 10.  Breast ultrasonography: state of the art.

Authors:  Regina J Hooley; Leslie M Scoutt; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Risk factors for axillary lymph node metastases in clinical stage T1-2N0M0 breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Yuanxin Zhang; Ji Li; Yuan Fan; Xiaomin Li; Juanjuan Qiu; Mou Zhu; Hongjiang Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.889

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.