Erkan Gokce, Murat Beyhan, Sukruye Firuze Ocak Karatas

Evaluating the dıagnostıc accuracy of birads assessment of mammography and ultrasound according to ultrasoundguıded core needle biopsy: 9 years-experience in a small town

Aim: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of the BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) assessment of ultrasonography and/or mammography according to US-guided core needle biopsy. Materials and Methods: 463 patients who had ultrasonography and/or mammography imaging and subsequent US-guided core needle biopsy between June 2011 and June 2020 in the Radiology Departments of two different centers in our town were studied retrospectively. BI-RADS assessment of ultrasonography and/or mammography were compared with histopathological diagnoses. When both examination existed, the higher score was determined as the final BIRADS category. The diagnostic efficiency of ultrasonography and/or mammography for determining malignancy were calculated. Results: Of the 463 lesions 222 (47.9%) were malignant and 241(52.1%) were benign. Based on ultrasonographic examination, malignancy was observed in 5 of the 86 (5.8%), 89 of 178 (50%), 4 of 63 (6.3%), 26 of 26 (100%) and 86 of 86 (100%), cases reported as BI-RADS 3, 4, 4A, 4C and 5. Based on mammography results, all of 50 masses (100%) classified as BI-RADS 5 and 38 of 47 masses (80.8%) classified as BI-RADS 4 were malignant. The frequency of malignancy in BI-RADS 3 masses was 5.8% based on ultrasonographic examination and 0.7% with both modalities. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy for ultrasonography were 92.2, 61.0, 69.1, 89.2, and 76.2%; for mammography were 96.7, 41.1, 89.8, 70.0, and 88.0%; for combined radiological evaluation were 99.5, 53.5, 66.3, 99.2 and 75.5% respectively. Conclusion: When mammography and ultrasonography were evaluated together, the rate of malignancy in BIRADS 3 lesions decreased from 5.8% (only ultrasonography) to 0.7%. In addition, sensitivity and negative predictive value increased statistically significantly (p

PDF

___

1. Brenner RJ, Parisky Y. Alternative breast-imaging approaches. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:907-23.
2. D'Orsi CJ; American College of Radiology. ACR BIRADS atlas: Breast imaging reporting and data system. ACR, American College of Radiology; 2013.
3. Madjar H. Role of breast ultrasound for the detection and differentiation of breast lesions. Breast Care 2010;5:109-14.
4. Liu G, Zhang MK, He Y, et al. BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: could multi-mode ultrasound be helpful for their diagnosis? Gland Surg 2019;8:258.
5. Van Breest Smallenburg V, Nederend J, Voogd A, et al. Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2013;109:242-8.
6. March DE, Raslavicus A, Coughlin B, et al. Use of breast core biopsy in the United States: results of a national survey. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:697-701.
7. Bassett LW, Mahoney MC, Apple SK. Interventional breast imaging: current procedures and assessing for concordance with pathology. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45:881-94.
8. Ernst M, Roukema J. Diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer: a review. Breast 2002;11:13-22.
9. Verkooijen H, Peeters P, Buskens E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2000;82:1017-21.
10. Carrasco RM, Benito MÁ, Gomariz EM, et al. Mammography and ultrasound in the evaluation of male breast disease. Eur Radiol 2010;20:2797-805.
11. Giordano SH, Cohen DS, Buzdar AU, et al. Breast carcinoma in men: a population-based study. Cancer 2004;101:51-7.
12. Eke A, Ojo BA, et al. The Spectrum of Breast Diseases in Nigeria North Central: A Histopathological Survey. JAMPS 2017;13:1-6.
13. Bhavani DC, Neeraja DM, Sravani DP. A study of histopathological spectrum of breast lesions in a tertiary care hospital. Int J Clin Diagn 2019;2:356-60.
14. Huang Z, Wen W, Zheng Y, et al. Breast cancer incidence and mortality: trends over 40 years among women in Shanghai, China. Ann Oncol 2016;27:1129-34.
15. Yeniceri O, Ozcan O, Cullu N, et al. Meme Kitlelerinde Tru-Cut Biyopsinin Yararlılığı. J Harran Univ Med Fac 2015;12:73-7.
16. Korpraphong P, Tritanon O, Tangcharoensathien W, et al. Ultrasonographic characteristics of mammographically occult small breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 2012;15:344-9.
17. Rikabi A, Hussain S. Diagnostic usefulness of USGCNB in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Oman Med J 2013;28:125
18. Zeeshan M, Salam B, Khalid QSB, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Mammography in the Detection of Breast Cancer. Cureus 2018;10:e2448.
19. Sim L, Hendriks J, Fook-Chong S. Breast ultrasound in women with familial risk of breast cancer. Ann Acad Med Singap 2004;33:600-6.
20. Tan KP, Mohamad Azlan Z, Rumaisa MP, et al. The comparative accuracy of ultrasound and mammography in the detection of breast cancer. Med J Malaysia 2014;69:79-85.
21. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123-34.
22. Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:109-14.
23. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889-94.