Can Cut-Off-Values for Tumor Size or Patient Age in Breast Ultrasound Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies or is it all About Bi-rads?– A Retrospective Analysis of 763 Biopsied T1-Sized Lesions

Abstract

Aims and Objectives To assess whether it is possible to establish a size cut-off-value for sonographically visible breast lesions in a screening situation, under which it is justifiable to obviate a biopsy and to evaluate the grayscale characteristics of the identified lesions.

Materials and Methods Images of sonographically visible and biopsied breast lesions of 684 patients were retrospectively reviewed and assessed for the following parameters: size, shape, margin, lesion boundary, vascularity, patient’s age, side of breast, histological result, and initial BI-RADS category. Statistical analyses (t-test for independent variables, ROC analyses, binary logistic regression models, cross-tabulations, positive/negative predictive values) were performed using IBM SPSS (Version 21.0).

Results Of all 763 biopsied lesions, 223 (29.2%) showed a malignant histologic result, while 540 (70.8%) were benign. Although we did find a statistically significant correlation of malignancy and lesion size (p=0.031), it was not possible to define a cut-off value, under which it would be justifiable to obviate a biopsy in terms of sensitivity and specificity (AUC: 0.558) at any age. Lesions showing the characteristics of a round or oval shape, a sharp delineation and no echogenic rim (n=112) were benign with an NPV of 99.1%.

Conclusion It is not possible to define a cut-off value for size or age, under which a biopsy of a sonographically visible breast lesion can be obviated in the screening situation. The combination of the 3 grayscale characteristics, shape (round or oval), margin (circumscribed) and no echogenic-rim sign, showed an NPV of 99.1%. Therefore, it seems appropriate to classify such lesions as BI-RADS 2.

Key words

breast - biopsy - 3D ultrasound

• References

• 1 D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS® atlas. ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system: Available from. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/BIRADS/ About-BIRADS/How-to-Cite-BIRADS Accessed 19 February 2015
• 2 Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225: 165-175
• 3 Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M. et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151-2163
• 4 Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D. et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: Recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 18-27
• 5 Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: Lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006; 241: 355-365
• 6 Cilotti A, Bagnolesi P, Moretti M, Gibilisco G, Bulleri A, Macaluso AM, Bartolozzi C. Comparison of the diagnostic performance of high-frequency ultrasound as a first- or second-line diagnostic tool in non-palpable lesions of the breast. Eur Radiol 1997; 7: 1240-1244
• 7 Benson SR, Blue J, Judd K, Harman JE. Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 381-385
• 8 Mercado CL. BI-RADS update. Radiol Clin North Am 2014; 52: 481-487
• 9 Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW, Rubin DL, Lee CH, Ikeda DM. et al. The ACR BI-RADS experience: Learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6: 851-860
• 10 Weismann CF. Breast ultrasound: New frontiers in imaging?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 279-281
• 11 Paulinelli RR, Freitas-Junior R, de Lucena CÊ, Moreira MA, de Moraes VA, Bernardes-Júnior JR. et al. Sonobreast: Predicting individualized probabilities of malignancy in solid breast masses with echographic expression. Breast J 2011; 17: 152-159
• 12 Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: Positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1260-1265
• 13 Baez E, Strathmann K, Vetter M, Madjar H, Hackelöer BJ. Likelihood of malignancy in breast lesions characterised by ultrasound with a combined diagnostic score. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005; 31: 179-184
• 14 Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Berg WA. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: Prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial. Radiology 2013; 269: 701-712
• 15 Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: Is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?. Radiology 2007; 244: 87-93
• 16 Kim SJ, Chang JM, Cho N, Chung SY, Han W, Moon WK. Outcome of breast lesions detected at screening ultrasonography. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3229-3233
• 17 Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: Interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006; 239: 385-391
• 18 Baker J, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: Observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 1621-1625
• 19 Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: State of the art. Radiology 2013; 268: 642-659