BACKGROUND: Biopsy has been recommended for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 lesions. However, the malignancy rate of category 4A lesions is very low (2-10%). Therefore, most biopsies of category 4A lesions are benign, and the results will generally cause additional health care costs and patient anxiety. METHODS: A prediction model was developed based on an analysis of 418 BI-RADS ultrasonography (US) category 4A patients at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to identify significant variables for inclusion in the final nomogram. The predictive accuracy and discriminative ability were evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves. An independent cohort of 97 patients from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University was used for external validation. RESULTS: The independent risk factors from the multivariate analysis for the training cohort were family history of breast cancer (OR =4.588, P=0.004), US features [margin (OR =2.916, P=0.019), shape (irregular vs. oval, OR =2.474, P=0.044; round vs. oval, OR =1.935, P=0.276), parallel orientation vs. not parallel (OR =2.204, P=0.040)], low suspicious lymph nodes (OR =7.664, P=0.019), and suspicious calcifications on mammography (MG) (OR =6.736, P=0.001). The C-index was good in the training [0.813, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.733 to 0.893] and validation cohorts (0.765, 95% CI, 0.584 to 0.946). The calibration curves showed optimal agreement between the nomogram prediction and actual observations for the probability of malignancy. Also, the cutoff score was set to 100 for discriminating high and low risk. The model performed well in discerning different risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a well-discriminated and calibrated nomogram to predict the malignancy of BI-RADS US category 4A lesions in dense breast tissue, which may help clinicians identify patients at lower or higher risk. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Biopsy has been recommended for Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 lesions. However, the malignancy rate of category 4A lesions is very low (2-10%). Therefore, most biopsies of category 4A lesions are benign, and the results will generally cause additional health care costs and patient anxiety. METHODS: A prediction model was developed based on an analysis of 418 BI-RADS ultrasonography (US) category 4A patients at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to identify significant variables for inclusion in the final nomogram. The predictive accuracy and discriminative ability were evaluated using the concordance index (C-index) and calibration curves. An independent cohort of 97 patients from the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University was used for external validation. RESULTS: The independent risk factors from the multivariate analysis for the training cohort were family history of breast cancer (OR =4.588, P=0.004), US features [margin (OR =2.916, P=0.019), shape (irregular vs. oval, OR =2.474, P=0.044; round vs. oval, OR =1.935, P=0.276), parallel orientation vs. not parallel (OR =2.204, P=0.040)], low suspicious lymph nodes (OR =7.664, P=0.019), and suspicious calcifications on mammography (MG) (OR =6.736, P=0.001). The C-index was good in the training [0.813, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.733 to 0.893] and validation cohorts (0.765, 95% CI, 0.584 to 0.946). The calibration curves showed optimal agreement between the nomogram prediction and actual observations for the probability of malignancy. Also, the cutoff score was set to 100 for discriminating high and low risk. The model performed well in discerning different risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a well-discriminated and calibrated nomogram to predict the malignancy of BI-RADS US category 4A lesions in dense breast tissue, which may help clinicians identify patients at lower or higher risk. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast; diagnosis; nomogram; predictive value of tests; ultrasonography (US)
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Miranda Pappas; Amy Cantor; Jessica Griffin; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Marcela G del Carmen; Elkan F Halpern; Daniel B Kopans; Beverly Moy; Richard H Moore; Paul E Goss; Kevin S Hughes Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.959
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
Authors: Gisela L G Menezes; Ruud M Pijnappel; Carla Meeuwis; Robertus Bisschops; Jeroen Veltman; Philip T Lavin; Marc J van de Vijver; Ritse M Mann Journal: Radiology Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Norman F Boyd; Johanna M Rommens; Kelly Vogt; Vivian Lee; John L Hopper; Martin J Yaffe; Andrew D Paterson Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E E Deurloo; P J Tanis; K G A Gilhuijs; S H Muller; R Kröger; J L Peterse; E J Th Rutgers; R Valdés Olmos; L J Schultze Kool Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: S Shen; Y Zhou; Y Xu; B Zhang; X Duan; R Huang; B Li; Y Shi; Z Shao; H Liao; J Jiang; N Shen; J Zhang; C Yu; H Jiang; S Li; S Han; J Ma; Q Sun Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 7.640