Tevfik Avcı, Hale Turnaoğlu, Murathan Erkent, Pelin Börcek, Pelin Kaya, Emre Karakaya

Are we on the side of over-diagnosis and treatment inBI-RADS 4A breast lesions?

Aim: In BI-RADS 4A lesions, a malignancy rate of between 2% and 10% has been detected. Many patients avoid biopsy even though biopsy is recommended because of its low malignancy rates. The aim of this study is to investigate the need for biopsy of patients with BI-RADS 4A lesions.Materials and Methods: 392 patients classified as BI-RADS 4A in our hospital between January 2011 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients, complaints, physical examination findings, USG (ultrasound), MMG (mammography) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, invasive surgical procedure or noninvasive procedure performed, pathology results were analyzed. Results: The mean age was 44.29 years (range, 15–93 years). The most common complaint was palpable mass (36.5%). While 88.5% of examined pathologies were evaluated as benign lesions, 7.1% were malignant. The rate of malignancy increased with age, and this difference was statistically significant (p = .000). Malignancy increases with lesions size but it was not statistically significant (p = .052). Palpable mass was more common in malignant lesions (55.2%) (p = .014). Comparing the radiological evaluations of BI-RADS 4A lesions with the post-biopsy pathology results, size increase, more than three lobulations, border irregularities, and cystic areas did not make a statistically significant difference in terms of benign, premalignant, and malignant pathologies; however, intraductal localization was observed more frequently in benign and premalignant lesions than in malignant lesions, and this difference was statistically significant (p = .003).Conclusion: We anticipate that the criteria developed with this study (more than three lobulations, border irregularity, cystic areas, and intraductal locations), applied to a wide range of patients, can be a source for future studies and can be used safely in other clinics. As a result, we strongly recommend biopsy for patients with postmenopausal and palpable masses if the criteria we used for detecting BI-RADS 4A are also present.

PDF

___

1. Sickles E, D’Orsi C, Bassett L. ACR BI-RADS Mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 2013; 5th edition.
2. Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Report Data Syst. 2013; 5th edition.
3. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, et al. Sonography of solid breast lesions: Observer variability of lesion description and assessment. Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1621-5.
4. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al. ACR BIRADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013, 6st editon, p134-7.
5. Mercado CL. BI-RADS Update. Radiologic Clinics of North America 2014;52:481-7.
6. Raj SD, Phillips J, Mehta TS, Quintana LM, Fishman MD, Dialani V, et al. Management of BIRADS 3, 4A, and 4B Lesions Diagnosed as Pure Papilloma by Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy: Is Surgical Excision Necessary? Acad Radiol. 2019;26:909-14.
7. Stines J. BI-RADS: Use in the French radiologic community. How to overcome with some difficulties. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61:224-34.
8. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, et al. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: Value of US in management - Followup and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248:773-81.
9. Levy L, Suissa M, Chiche JF, et al. BIRADS ultrasonography. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61:202-11.
10. Giess CS, Smeglin LZ, Meyer JE, et al. Risk of malignancy in palpable solid breast masses considered probably benign or low suspicion implications for management. J Ultrasound Med 2012;31:1943-9.
11. Niu S, Huang J, Li J, et al. Application of ultrasound artificial intelligence in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant breast lesions of BIRADS 4A. BMC Cancer 2020;20:959.
12. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, et al. BI-RADS for sonography: Positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1260-5.
13. Costantini M, Belli P, Ierardi C, Franceschini G, La Torre G, Bonomo L. Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classificationUso della classificazione BI-RADS nella caratterizzazione ecografica delle lesioni solide della mammella. Radiol Med 2007;112:877-94.
14. Quan J, Hong Y, Zhang X, et al. The clinical role of contrast enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of BI-RADS 4 breast disease. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;72:293-303.
15. Chikarmane SA, Tai R, Meyer JE, et al. Prevalence and Predictive Value of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions Detected on Breast MRI: Correlation with Study Indication. Acad Radiol. 2017;24:435-41.
16. Koziełek K, Stranz-Walczak N, Gajdzis P, et al. Evaluation of the positive predictive value (PPV3) of ACR BI-RADS category 4 and 5 based on the outcomes of invasive diagnostic office in an outpatient clinic. Polish J Radiol. 2019;84:185-9.
17. De Almeida JRM, Gomes AB, Barros TP, et al. Subcategorization of suspicious breast lesions (BIRADS Category 4) according to MRI criteria: Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:222-31.
18. Chevrier MC, David J, Khoury M El, et al. Breast Biopsies Under Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guidance: Challenges of an Essential but Imperfect Technique. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology. 2016;45:193-204.