nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.01.2012 | Breast

BI-RADS categorisation of 2708 consecutive nonpalpable breast lesions in patients referred to a dedicated breast care unit

verfasst von: A.-S. Hamy, S. Giacchetti, M. Albiter, C. de Bazelaire, C. Cuvier, F. Perret, S. Bonfils, P. Charvériat, H. Hocini, A. de Roquancourt, M. Espie

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the malignancy rate of nonpalpable breast lesions, categorised according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification in the setting of a Breast Care Unit.

Methods

All nonpalpable breast lesions from consecutive patients referred to a dedicated Breast Care Unit were prospectively reviewed and classified into 5 BI-RADS assessment categories (0, 2, 3, 4, and 5).

Results

A total of 2708 lesions were diagnosed by mammography (71.6%), ultrasound (8.7%), mammography and ultrasound (19.5%), or MRI (0.2%). The distribution of the lesions by BI-RADS category was: 152 in category 0 (5.6%), 56 in category 2 (2.1%), 742 in category 3 (27.4%), 1523 in category 4 (56.2%) and 235 in category 5 (8.7%). Histology revealed 570 malignant lesions (32.9%), 152 high-risk lesions (8.8%), and 1010 benign lesions (58.3%). Malignancy was detected in 17 (2.3%) category 3 lesions, 364 (23.9%) category 4 lesions and 185 (78.7%) category 5 lesions. Median follow-up was 36.9 months.

Conclusion

This pragmatic study reflects the assessment and management of breast impalpable abnormalities referred for care to a specialized Breast Unit. Multidisciplinary evaluation with BI-RADS classification accurately predicts malignancy, and reflects the quality of management. This assessment should be encouraged in community practice appraisal.

Reston VA, American College of Radiology (2003) American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas)

Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:35–40PubMed

Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC (1999) BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 211:845–850PubMed

Zonderland HM, Pope TL (2004) The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 14:1743–1750PubMedCrossRef

Kim E, Ko KH, Oh KK, Kwak JY, You JK, Kim MJ, Park B (2008) Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:1209–1215PubMedCrossRef

Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL (2008) BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management–follow-up and outcome. Radiology 248:773–781PubMedCrossRef

Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S, White E, Urban N (2002) Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:15–20PubMed

Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P (1999) Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1621–1625PubMed

Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE (1996) Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:773–778PubMed

10.

Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ (2000) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777PubMed

11.

Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS (2006) BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239:385–391PubMedCrossRef

12.

Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E (2005) Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol 15:1027–1036PubMedCrossRef

13.

Balleyguier C, Ayadi S, Van Nguyen K, Vanel D, Dromain C, Sigal R (2007) BIRADS classification in mammography. Eur J Radiol 61:192–194PubMedCrossRef

14.

Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL (2010) US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics 30:1199–1213PubMedCrossRef

15.

Lévy L, Suissa M, Bokobsa J, Tristant H, Chiche J, Martin B, Teman G (2005) Presentation of the French translation of the Breast Imaging Reporting System and Data System (BI-RADS). Gynecol Obstet Fertil 33:338–347PubMedCrossRef

16.

ANAES, Service des recommandations et références professionnelles, ANAES.Classification en six catégories des images mammographiques en fonction du degré de suspicionde leur caractère pathologique (2002) Correspondance avec le système BI-RADS) de l’American College of Radiology (ACR) – Recommandations pour la pratique clinique

17.

Stines J (2007) BI-RADS: use in the French radiologic community. How to overcome with some difficulties Eur J Radiol 61:224–234

18.

Pfarl G, Helbich TH (2002) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS)–German version. Rofo 174:921–926PubMedCrossRef

19.

Mayi-Tsonga S, Meye J, Ngou-Mve-Ngou J, Mendome G, Mounanga M (2006) Nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation of the BI-RADS classification and histologic findings. Sante 16:179–183PubMed

20.

Ball CG, Butchart M, MacFarlane JK (2002) Effect on biopsy technique of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) for nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities. Can J Surg 45:259–263PubMed

21.

Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, Fuchsjaeger M, Memarsadeghi M, Rudas M, Weber M, Liberman L, Helbich TH (2008) US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology 248:406–413PubMedCrossRef

22.

Bérubé M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Oliva D (1998) Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy. Can Assoc Radiol J 49:223–228PubMed

23.

Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E (2004) Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol 15:450–454PubMedCrossRef

24.

Tonegutti M, Girardi V (2008) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 268 nonpalpable lesions. Radiol Med 113:65–75PubMedCrossRef

25.

Zografos G, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Nonni A, Koulocheri D, Dardamanis D, Oikonomou V, Giannopoulos P, Kouerinis I et al (2008) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in nonpalpable solid breast lesions without microcalcifications: the Greek experience. Diagn Interv Radiol 14:127–130PubMed

26.

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Bianchi S, Bonardi R, Brancato B, Catarzi S, Risso GG (2007) Accuracy and underestimation of malignancy of breast core needle biopsy: the Florence experience of over 4000 consecutive biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101:291–297PubMedCrossRef

27.

Gülsün M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyürek M (2003) Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System criteria and Le Gal’s classification. Eur J Radiol 47:227–231PubMedCrossRef

28.

Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, Ernster VL, Yankaskas BC, Sickles EA, Carney PA, Dignan MB, Rosenberg RD et al (2002) Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 222:536–542PubMedCrossRef

29.

Kopans DB (2003) Breast imaging and the symptomatic patient: enough with the “diagnostic” mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1423, author reply 1423–1424PubMed

30.

Peters N, Hoorntje L, Mali W, Borel Rinkes I, Peeters P (2008) Diagnostic performance of stereotactic large core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions in routine clinical practice. Int J Cancer 122:468–471PubMedCrossRef

31.

Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Blanks R, Ballard-Barbash R, Bobo JK, Lee NC, Wallis MG et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. Jama 290:2129–2137PubMedCrossRef

32.

Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Pettinger M, Chlebowski RT, Robbins JA, Lane DS, Hendrix SL (2003) Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:429–436PubMedCrossRef

33.

Dawson JS, Wilson AR (1994) Short-term recall for ‘probably benign’ mammographic lesions detected in a three yearly screening programme. Clin Radiol 49:391–395PubMedCrossRef

34.

Lehman CD, Rutter CM, Eby PR, White E, Buist DSM, Taplin SH (2008) Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:511–515PubMedCrossRef

35.

Dorrius MD, Pijnappel RM, Jansen-van der Weide MC, Oudkerk M (2010) Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem-solving modality in mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions. Cancer Imag 10:54–58ACrossRef

36.

Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, Malekshamran K, Perez I, Ramos E (2004) Evaluation of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Cancer 100:710–714PubMedCrossRef

37.

Pijnappel RM, Peeters PHM, Hendriks JHCL, Mali WPTM (2004) Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 77:312–314PubMedCrossRef

38.

Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB (1999) Positive predictive value of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Am Coll Surg 189:34–40PubMedCrossRef

39.

Mazouni C, Sneige N, Rouzier R, Balleyguier C, Bevers T, André F, Vielh P, Delaloge S (2010) A nomogram to predict for malignant diagnosis of BI-RADS Category 4 breast lesions. J Surg Oncol 102:220–224PubMedCrossRef

40.

Chérel P, Hagay C (2005) Les macrobiopsies par aspiration sur table dédiée numérisée. Ref Gynecol Obstet 11:76–92

41.

Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Fischmann A, Fersis N, Vogel U, Claussen CD, Müller-Schimpfle M (2003) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy–success, histologic accuracy, patient acceptance and optimizing the BI-RADSTM-correlated indication. Rofo 175:99–104PubMedCrossRef

42.

Le Gal M, Chavanne G, Pellier D (1984) Diagnostic value of clustered microcalcifications discovered by mammography (apropos of 227 cases with histological verification and without a palpable breast tumor). Bull Cancer 71:57–64PubMed

43.

Malhaire C, El Khoury C, Thibault F, Athanasiou A, Petrow P, Ollivier L, Tardivon A (2010) Vacuum-assisted biopsies under MR guidance: results of 72 procedures. Eur Radiol 20:1554–1562PubMedCrossRef

44.

Seror J, Lesieur B, Scheuer-Niro B, Zerat L, Rouzier R, Uzan S (2011) Predictive factors for complete excision and underestimation of one-pass en bloc excision of non-palpable breast lesions with the Intact(®) breast lesion excision system. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.049

Titel: BI-RADS categorisation of 2708 consecutive nonpalpable breast lesions in patients referred to a dedicated breast care unit
verfasst von: A.-S. Hamy
S. Giacchetti
M. Albiter
C. de Bazelaire
C. Cuvier
F. Perret
S. Bonfils
P. Charvériat
H. Hocini
A. de Roquancourt
M. Espie
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2012
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2201-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

23.04.2024 | Pankreaskarzinom | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

BI-RADS categorisation of 2708 consecutive nonpalpable breast lesions in patients referred to a dedicated breast care unit

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Functional imaging of lung cancer using dual energy CT: how does iodine related attenuation correlate with standardized uptake value of 18FDG-PET-CT?

Dual source multidetector CT-angiography before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) using a high-pitch spiral acquisition mode

Musculoskeletal imaging with a prototype photon-counting detector

Small peripheral lung carcinomas with five-year post-surgical follow-up: assessment by semi-automated volumetric measurement of tumour size, CT value and growth rate on TSCT

Radiofrequency ablation for non-spinal osteoid osteomas in 557 patients

MR first pass perfusion of benign and malignant cardiac tumours—significant differences and diagnostic accuracy

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Update Radiologie