Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Ultrasound Int Open 2022; 08(01): E8-E14
DOI: 10.1055/a-1832-1808
Original Article

Positive Predictive Value for the Malignancy of Mammographic Abnormalities Based on the Presence of an Ultrasound Correlate

Taghreed Alshafeiy
1   Radiology, Suez Canal University Faculty of Medicine, Ismailia, Egypt
,
James Patrie
2   Biostatistics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
,
Mohammad al-Shatouri
1   Radiology, Suez Canal University Faculty of Medicine, Ismailia, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose To compare the outcomes of different mammographic lesions based on the presence of an ultrasound (US) correlate and to estimate how often targeted US can identify such lesions.

Materials and Methods This retrospective study included all consecutive cases from 2010 to 2016, with Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS) categories 4 & 5 who underwent US as part of their diagnostic workup. We compared the incidence of malignancy between lesions comprising a US correlate that underwent US-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) and those without a correlate that underwent stereotactic CNB.

Results 833 lesions met the study criteria and included masses (64.3%), architectural distortion (19%), asymmetries (4.6%), and calcifications (12.1%). The CNB-based positive predictive value (PPV) was higher for lesions with a US correlate than for those without (40.2% [36.1, 44.4%] vs. 18.9% [14.5, 23.9%], respectively) (p<0.001). Malignancy odds for masses, asymmetries, architectural distortion, and calcifications were greater by 2.70, 4.17, 4.98, and 2.77 times, respectively, for the US-guided CNB (p<0.001, p=0.091, p<0.001, and p=0.034, respectively). Targeted US identified a correlate to 66.3% of the mammographic findings. The odds of finding a correlate were greater for masses (77.8%) than architectural distortions (53.8%) (p<0.001) or calcifications (24.8%) (p<0.001).

Conclusion The success of targeted US in identifying a correlate varies significantly according to the type of mammographic lesion. The PPV of lesions with a US correlate was significantly higher than that of those with no correlate. However, the PPV of lesions with no US correlate is high enough (18.9%) to warrant a biopsy.

Key words

breast - AREAS - STRUCTURES & SYSTEMS - mammography - METHODS & TECHNIQUES - ultrasound - METHODS & TECHNIQUES


Publication History

Received: 29 June 2021

Accepted after revision: 18 April 2022

Article published online:
15 July 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196: 123-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berliere M, Berg BV, D’Hoore W. et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1675-1679
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O. et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 2006; 111: 440-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Durand MA, Wang S, Hooley RJ, Raghu M, Philpotts LE. Tomosynthesis-detected Architectural Distortion: Management Algorithm with Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics. 2016; 36: 311-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 D’Orsi CSE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS breast imaging atlas. 5th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology,; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. American Statistician 1998; 52: 119-126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV. Architectural Distortion on Mammography: Correlation With Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015; 205: 1339-1345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chesebro AL, Winkler NS, Birdwell RL, Giess CS. Developing Asymmetry at Mammography: Correlation with US and MR Imaging and Histopathologic Findings. Radiology 2016; 279: 385-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shetty MK, Watson AB. Sonographic evaluation of focal asymmetric density of the breast. Ultrasound Q 2002; 18: 115-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 941-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bae S, Yoon JH, Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK. Breast Microcalcifications: Diagnostic Outcomes According to Image-Guided Biopsy Method. Korean J Radiol 2015; 16: 996-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Madeley C, Kessell M, Madeley C, Taylor D. A comparison of stereotactic and tomosynthesisguided localisation of impalpable breast lesions. J Med Radiat Sci 2019; 66: 170-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Poole BB, Wecsler JS, Sheth P, Sener SF, Wang L, Larsen L. et al. Malignancy rates after surgical excision of discordant breast biopsies. J Surg Res 2015; 195: 152-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Liberman L, Drotman M, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Zakowski MF. et al. Imaging-histologic discordance at percutaneous breast biopsy. Cancer 2000; 89: 2538-2546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Son EJ, Kim EK, Youk JH, Kim MJ, Kwak JY, Choi SH. Imaging-histologic discordance after sonographically guided percutaneous breast biopsy: a prospective observational study. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011; 37: 1771-1778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Shah VI, Raju U, Chitale D, Deshpande V, Gregory N, Strand V. False-negative core needle biopsies of the breast: an analysis of clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings in 27 concecutive cases of missed breast cancer. Cancer 2003; 97: 1824-1831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Soyder A, Taskin F, Ozbas S. Imaging-histological discordance after sonographically guided percutaneous breast core biopsy. Breast Care 2015; 10: 33-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, Fuchsjaeger M, Memarsadeghi M, Rudas M. et al. US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology 2008; 248: 406-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mainiero M, Koellike S, Lazarus E, Schepps B, Lee C. Ultrasound-guided Large-Core Needle Biopsy of the Breast: Frequency and Results of Repeat Biopsy. Journal of Women’s Imaging. 2002; 4: 52-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Berg W, Berg A, Loffe O. Initial success and frequency of rebiopsy after ultrasound-guided 14-gauge core breast biopsy. American Journal of Roentgenology 2003; 180: 10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Fourteen-gauge ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy of breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 967-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Crystal P, Koretz M, Shcharynsky S, Makarov V, Strano S. Accuracy of sonographically guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: results of 715 consecutive breast biopsies with at least two-year follow-up of benign lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 2005; 33: 47-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Kao E. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 2009; 252: 665-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Choi EJ, Lee EH, Kim YM. et al. Interobserver agreement in breast ultrasound categorization in the Mammography and Ultrasonography Study for Breast Cancer Screening Effectiveness (MUST-BE) trial: results of a preliminary study. Ultrasonography 2019; 38: 172-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Elverici E, Zengin B, Nurdan Barca A, Didem Yilmaz P, Alimli A, Araz L. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of sonographicBIRADS lexicon in the assessment of breast masses. Iran J Radiol 2013; 10: 122-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Calas MJ, Almeida RM, Gutifilen B, Pereira WC. Interobserver concordance in the BI-RADS classification of breast ultrasound exams. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2012; 67: 185-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Youk JH, Lee JY, Kang DR. et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65: 293-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Palazuelos G, Valencia SA, Romero JA. More than interobserver agreement is required for comparisons of categorization systems. Ultrasonography 2019; 38: 374-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar