nach oben

Erschienen in:

04.01.2018 | Breast

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

verfasst von: Yue Hu, Yaping Yang, Ran Gu, Liang Jin, Shiyu Shen, Fengtao Liu, Hongli Wang, Jingsi Mei, Xiaofang Jiang, Qiang Liu, Fengxi Su

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 6/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To calculate the positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV₃) of the Ultrasound section of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR BI-RADS US) atlas categories 4 and 5 in different age groups and to determine whether patient age influences the PPV₃ of each category in the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Methods

We identified 2,433 ACR BI-RADS US categories 4 and 5 lesions with a known pathological diagnosis in 2,433 women. The patients were classified into three age groups (<35, 35–50, and >50 years). The age-related PPV₃ of each category in the three age groups were calculated based on the pathological diagnoses and compared using the chi-squared test.

Results

The overall PPV₃ of each category was within the reference range provided by the ACR in 2013. PPV₃ gradually increased with increasing age in patients with category 4 lesions. PPV₃ in the oldest group with subcategories 4A and 4B lesions were close to or exceeded the reference values.

Conclusions

PPV₃ and age were significantly associated in patients with category 4 lesions according to the newest edition of ACR BI-RADS US in the diagnostic setting. Closer attention should be given to older patients when assigning a final assessment category.

Key points

• In patients with category 4 lesions , the likelihood of malignancy is associated with age.

• In patients with category 5 lesions, the association is not definite.

• Closer attention should be given to older patients in applying the ACR BI-RADS US.

Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 151(727–737):w237–w242

Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164:244–255CrossRefPubMed

Fan L, Strasser-Weippl K, Li JJ et al (2014) Breast cancer in China. Lancet Oncol 15:e279–e289CrossRefPubMed

Dai H, Yan Y, Wang P et al (2014) Distribution of mammographic density and its influential factors among Chinese women. Int J Epidemiol 43:1240–1251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Chen Z, Nagata C, Gram IT (2007) Ethnic and geographic differences in mammographic density and their association with breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 104:47–56CrossRefPubMed

Leong SP, Shen ZZ, Liu TJ et al (2010) Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg 34:2308–2324CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087CrossRefPubMed

Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164:256–267CrossRefPubMed

Huang Y, Dai H, Song F et al (2016) Preliminary effectiveness of breast cancer screening among 1.22 million Chinese females and different cancer patterns between urban and rural women. Sci Rep 6:39459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Berg WA (2016) Current status of supplemental screening in dense breasts. J Clin Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2015.65.8674

11.

Berg WA, Bandos AI, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED (2016) Ultrasound as the primary screening test for breast cancer: analysis from ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst 108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv367

12.

Shen S, Zhou Y, Xu Y et al (2015) A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer 112:998–1004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W, Merritt C, Rubin E (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. American College of Radiology, Reston

14.

Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston

15.

Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M et al (2015) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2011. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

16.

Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T et al (2016) Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387:341–348CrossRefPubMed

17.

Zou X, Wang J, Lan X et al (2016) Assessment of diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of categories 4 and 5 of the second edition of the BI-RADS ultrasound lexicon in diagnosing breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 42:2065–2071CrossRefPubMed

18.

Elverici E, Barca AN, Aktas H et al (2015) Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Diagn Interv Radiol 21:189–194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Berg WA (2003) Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1225–1228CrossRefPubMed

20.

Fu CY, Hsu HH, Yu JC et al (2011) Influence of age on PPV of sonographic BI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5. Ultraschall Med 32(Suppl 1):S8–13PubMed

21.

Patterson SK, Neal CH, Jeffries DO et al (2014) Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147:311–316CrossRefPubMed

22.

Benndorf M, Wu Y, Burnside ES (2016) A history of breast cancer and older age allow risk stratification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 ratings in the diagnostic setting. Clin Imaging 40:200–204CrossRefPubMed

23.

Yoon JH, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Kim EK (2011) Subcategorization of ultrasonographic BI-RADS category 4: positive predictive value and clinical factors affecting it. Ultrasound Med Biol 37:693–699CrossRefPubMed

24.

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 30:1199–1213CrossRefPubMed

25.

Baek SE, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Youk JH, Lee HJ, Son EJ (2009) Effect of clinical information on diagnostic performance in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 28:1349–1356CrossRefPubMed

26.

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 248:773–781CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kim JY, Jung EJ, Park T et al (2015) Prognostic importance of ultrasound BI-RADS classification in breast cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 45:411–415CrossRefPubMed

28.

Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M et al (2010) Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 30:1183–1198CrossRefPubMed

29.

Yoo JL, Woo OH, Kim YK et al (2010) Can MR Imaging contribute in characterizing well-circumscribed breast carcinomas? Radiographics 30:1689–1702CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Does patient age affect the PPV3 of ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound categories 4 and 5 in the diagnostic setting?
verfasst von: Yue Hu
Yaping Yang
Ran Gu
Liang Jin
Shiyu Shen
Fengtao Liu
Hongli Wang
Jingsi Mei
Xiaofang Jiang
Qiang Liu
Fengxi Su
Publikationsdatum: 04.01.2018
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5203-3

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

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