Influence of Age on PPV of Sonographic BI-RADS Categories 3, 4, and 5

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Ziel dieser retrospektiven Studie war die Berechnung des positiv prädiktiven Wertes (PPV) der sonografischen Breast-Imaging-Reporting-and-Data-System (BI-RADS)-Kategorien 3, 4 und 5 in verschiedenen Altersgruppen, um zu prüfen, ob das Patientenalter den PPV von BI-RADS-Kategorien in der Mammasonografie beeinflusst. Material und Methoden: Aus unserer US-gestützen Stanzbiopsie-Datenbank wurden aus dem Zeitraum von 2003 bis 2006 2817 BI-RADS-Kategorie-3-, -4- und -5-Läsionen bei 2587 Frauen mit bekannter Histopathologie identifiziert. Alle hatten zunächst eine Mammasonografie mit Einschätzung anhand des BI-RADS-Lexikons und danach eine US-gezielte Stanzbiopsie. Alle Läsionen wurden in 3 Altersgruppen eingeteilt (< 45, 45 – 59 und > 59 Jahre). Die altersbezogenen PPVs für jede BI-RADS-Kategorie innerhalb der 3 Altergruppen wurden auf der Basis der histopathologischen Diagnosen kalkuliert und mittels des χ²-Tests verglichen. Ergebnisse: Der PPV für die jeweilige BI-RADS-Kategorie war: 2,2 % in Kategorie 3, 6,5 % in Kategorie 4a, 35,2 % in Kategorie 4b, 79,6 % in Kategorie 4c und 99,6 % in Kategorie 5. Die altersbezogenen PPVs aus Kategorie 3 variierten signifikant zwischen den 3 Altergruppen (0,9 % versus 3,9 % versus 2,0 % p = 0,048); bemerkenswerterweise war der altersbezogene PPV in Gruppe 2 höher als in den anderen Gruppen. Zudem gab es eine signifikante positive Korrelation zwischen den altersbezogenen PPVs und zunehmendem Alter in Kategorie 4a und 4b (4a, p < 0,0001 und 4b, p = 0,0139), aber nicht in Kategorie 4c und 5 (4c, p = 0,1853 and 5, p = 0,2871). Schlussfolgerung: Die Inzidenz des weiblichen Brustkrebses differiert nicht nur in den unterschiedlichen sonografischen BI-RADS-Kategorien, sondern auch in verschiedenen Altersgruppen. Daher sollte spezifischen Altersgruppen, die wir für die sonografischen BI-RADS-Kategorien 3, 4a und 4b fanden, besondere Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt werden.

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study was to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of sonographic Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 3, 4, and 5 in different age groups to investigate whether age influences the PPV of the BI-RADS category in breast ultrasound. Materials and Methods: From our sonography-guided core biopsy database of breasts between 2006 and 2008, we identified 2817 BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions with known pathological diagnosis in 2587 women, all of whom underwent the earlier breast assessment via ultrasound with a sonographic BI-RADS lexicon and later sonography-guided core biopsy. All lesions were classified into three age groups (< 45, 45 – 59, and > 59 years). The age-related PPVs of each BI-RADS category among three age groups were calculated on the basis of pathological diagnoses and were compared using a χ²-test. Results: The overall PPV of each BI-RADS category was 2.2 % in category 3, 6.5 % in category 4a, 35.2 % in category 4b, 79.6 % in category 4c, and 99.6 % in category 5. The age-related PPVs of category 3 varied significantly among the three age groups (0.9 % versus 3.9 % versus 2.0 % p = 0.048), and notably, the age-related PPV in group 2 was higher than the others. Additionally, there was a significant positive association between the age-related PPVs and increasing age in categories 4a and 4b (4a, p < 0.0001 and 4b, p = 0.0139), but not in categories 4c and 5 (4c, p = 0.1853 and 5, p = 0.2871). Conclusion: The incidence of female breast cancer differs not only in different sonographic BI-RADS categories, but also in different age groups. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the special age group that we found for sonographic BI-RADS categories 3, 4a, and 4b.

breast - BI-RADS - sonography - positive predictive value

References

• 1 D’Orsi C J, Bassett L W, Berg W A. et al .Mammography. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 2003
• 2 Mendelson E B, Baum L K, Berg W A. et al .Ultrasound. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 2003
• 3 Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R et al. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon.  J Ultrasound Med. 2006;  25 649-659
• 4 Lazarus E, Mainiero M B, Schepps B et al. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.  Radiology. 2006;  239 385-391
• 5 Raza S, Chikarmane S A, Neilsen S S et al. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management – follow-up and outcome.  Radiology. 2008;  248 773-781
• 6 Kim E K, Ko K H, Oh K K et al. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography.  Am J Roentgenol. 2008;  190 1209-1215
• 7 Graf O, Helbich T M, Hopf G et al. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?.  Radiology. 2007;  244 87-93
• 8 Shen Y C, Chang C J, Hsu C et al. Significant difference in the trends of female breast cancer incidence between Taiwanese and Caucasian Americans: implications from age-period-cohort analysis.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;  14 1986-1990
• 9 Cheng S H, Tsou M H, Liu M C et al. Unique features of breast cancerin Taiwan.  Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;  63 213-223
• 10 The Research Group for Population-based Cancer Registration in Japan . Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 1994: estimates based on data from seven population-based cancer registries.  Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1999;  29 361-364
• 11 Lee J H, Yim S H, Won Y J et al. Population-based breast cancer statistics in Korea during 1993 – 2002: incidence, mortality, and survival.  J Korean Med Sci. 2007;  22 S11-S16
• 12 Stavros A T, Thickman D, Rapp C L et al. Solid breast nodules: Use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions.  Radiology. 1995;  196 123-134
• 13 Rahbar G, Sie A C, Hansen G C et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.  Radiology. 1999;  213 889-894
• 14 Hong A S, Rosen E L, Soo M S et al. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.  Am J Roentgenol. 2005;  184 1260-1265
• 15 Tabar L, Yen M F, Vitak B et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening.  Lancet. 2003;  361 1405-1410
• 16 Kopans D B. Beyond randomized, controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast cancer mortality.  Cancer. 2002;  94 580-581
• 17 Kopans D B. Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically.  Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  182 489-491
• 18 Strano S, Crystal P. Adjunct sonography and not screening in cancer detection (letter).  Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  183 539 ; author reply 539 – 540
• 19 Zonderland H M, Pope T L, Nieborg A J. 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. 2004;  14 1743-1750
• 20 Mainiero M B, Goldkamp Jr A, Lazarus E et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred?.  J Ultrasound Med. 2005;  24 161-167