Wei-Min Li1, Qiu-Wei Sun1, Xiao-Fang Fan1, Jun-Chao Zhang1, Ting Xu2, Qi-Qi Shen1, Lei Jia1. 1. Department of Ultrasonography, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China. 2. Department of Clinical and Research, Shenzhen Mindray Biomedical Electronics Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High breast density is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast diseases. Presently, suspected breast masses assessed as Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) grade 4 provide a wide range of positive predictive values. Moreover, subcategories (4a, 4b, and 4c) are still under consideration as the diagnostic criteria are neither comprehensive nor objective. However, whether mammography breast density (MBD) has any impact on the accurate grading of BI-RADS 4 assessed by ultrasound (US) remains unknown. METHODS: A total of 1,086 women with 1,293 breast masses were included and assessed as BI-RADS 3-5 by US. The subcategories of MBD (from the ACR-a to the ACR-d group) were assessed by mammography according to the criteria of the American College of Radiology (ACR). The clinicopathological characteristics of these patients were reviewed retrospectively. The malignancy rates of breast masses among different subgroups assessed by BI-RADS were re-estimated with MBD. RESULTS: Almost all BI-RADS 3 masses were classified as benign and nearly all BI-RADS 5 masses were identified as malignant. Significant inverse associations between MBD and malignancy rates were detected between the BI-RADS 4a and BI-RADS 4b groups. Moreover, malignancy rates decreased significantly from ACR-a to ACR-d for BI-RADS 4a and 4b breast lesions (P<0.001). However, this trend was not observed in BI-RADS 4c breast lesions. CONCLUSIONS: MBD could serve as a crucial factor for the accurate grading of BI-RADS 4 lesions assessed by US. We strongly recommend the adoption of the MBD as a possible supplemental screening modality for US. Furthermore, it is equally beneficial for accurate risk assessment and screening recommendations based on MBD. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: High breast density is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast diseases. Presently, suspected breast masses assessed as Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) grade 4 provide a wide range of positive predictive values. Moreover, subcategories (4a, 4b, and 4c) are still under consideration as the diagnostic criteria are neither comprehensive nor objective. However, whether mammography breast density (MBD) has any impact on the accurate grading of BI-RADS 4 assessed by ultrasound (US) remains unknown. METHODS: A total of 1,086 women with 1,293 breast masses were included and assessed as BI-RADS 3-5 by US. The subcategories of MBD (from the ACR-a to the ACR-d group) were assessed by mammography according to the criteria of the American College of Radiology (ACR). The clinicopathological characteristics of these patients were reviewed retrospectively. The malignancy rates of breast masses among different subgroups assessed by BI-RADS were re-estimated with MBD. RESULTS: Almost all BI-RADS 3 masses were classified as benign and nearly all BI-RADS 5 masses were identified as malignant. Significant inverse associations between MBD and malignancy rates were detected between the BI-RADS 4a and BI-RADS 4b groups. Moreover, malignancy rates decreased significantly from ACR-a to ACR-d for BI-RADS 4a and 4b breast lesions (P<0.001). However, this trend was not observed in BI-RADS 4c breast lesions. CONCLUSIONS: MBD could serve as a crucial factor for the accurate grading of BI-RADS 4 lesions assessed by US. We strongly recommend the adoption of the MBD as a possible supplemental screening modality for US. Furthermore, it is equally beneficial for accurate risk assessment and screening recommendations based on MBD. 2021 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
BI-RADS 4; Mammographic breast density (MBD); ultrasound (US)
Authors: Zoey Zy Ang; Mohammad A Rawashdeh; Rob Heard; Patrick C Brennan; Warwick Lee; Sarah J Lewis Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Stephen W Duffy; Oliver W E Morrish; Prue C Allgood; Richard Black; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Roberta Maroni; Yit Y Lim; Hema N Purushothaman; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Kenneth C Young; Lorraine Tucker; Fiona J Gilbert Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Megan S Rice; Kimberly A Bertrand; Tyler J VanderWeele; Bernard A Rosner; Xiaomei Liao; Hans-Olov Adami; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 6.466