Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245384
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Influence of Age on PPV of Sonographic BI-RADS Categories 3, 4, and 5
Einfluss des Alters auf den PPV der sonografischen BI-RADS-Kategorien 3, 4, und 5Publication History
received: 28.10.2009
accepted: 20.2.2010
Publication Date:
05 July 2010 (online)

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.
Key words
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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 13
Rahbar G, Sie A C, Hansen G C et al.
Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.
Radiology.
1999;
213
889-894
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 16
Kopans D B.
Beyond randomized, controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially
reduces breast cancer mortality.
Cancer.
2002;
94
580-581
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 18
Strano S, Crystal P.
Adjunct sonography and not screening in cancer detection (letter).
Am J Roentgenol.
2004;
183
539
; author reply 539 – 540
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
- 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
MissingFormLabel
Dr. Chi-Hong Chu
Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital,
National Defense Medical Center
No. 325, Cheng-Kung Road, Sec. 2
Neihu 114 Taipei
Taiwan
Phone: ++ 8 86/2/87 92 73 72
Fax: ++ 8 86/2/87 92 73 72
Email: hong18002@hotmail.com