Subcategory classifications of Breast Imaging and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 lesions on MRI.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Breast
/ diagnostic imaging
Breast Neoplasms
/ classification
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
/ methods
Middle Aged
Predictive Value of Tests
Radiology Information Systems
/ statistics & numerical data
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
Breast neoplasms
Diagnosis
Magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
Japanese journal of radiology
ISSN: 1867-108X
Titre abrégé: Jpn J Radiol
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101490689
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
20
05
2020
accepted:
09
08
2020
pubmed:
2
9
2020
medline:
26
5
2021
entrez:
2
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Category 4 in BI-RADS for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a wide range of probabilities of malignancy, extending from > 2 to < 95%. We classified category 4 lesions into three subcategories and analyzed the positive predictive value (PPV) of malignancy in a tertiary hospital. This retrospective study included 346 breast MRIs with 434 category 2-5 lesions. All enhancing lesions were classified as category 2 (0% probability of malignancy), 3 (> 0%, ≤ 2%), 4 (> 2%, < 95%) and 5 (≥ 95%); category 4 lesions were further subcategorized into 4A (> 2%, ≤ 10%), 4B (> 10%, ≤ 50%) and 4C (> 50%, < 95%) at the time of diagnosis. Radiological and pathological reports were retrospectively analyzed, and the PPVs were calculated. We included 149 malignant and 285 benign lesions. The PPVs of subcategories 4A, 4B and 4C were 1.8%, 11.8% and 67.5%, respectively. The PPVs were higher for lesions coexisting with category 5 or 6 lesions compared with those for isolated lesions. Category 4 lesions can be classified into three subcategories depending on the likelihood of malignancy. Lesions coexisting with category 5 or 6 lesions are more likely to be malignant.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32870440
doi: 10.1007/s11604-020-01029-w
pii: 10.1007/s11604-020-01029-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
56-65Références
D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, et al. ACR BIRADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
Farghadani M, Soofi G, Sarrami A. Is there any correlation between magnetic resonance imaging features of breast lesions of BIRADS category 4 with histopathologic results? Adv Biomed Res Medknow. 2017;6:7.
doi: 10.4103/2277-9175.199258
Mahoney MC, Gatsonis C, Hanna L, DeMartini WB, Lehman C. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;264:51–8.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12110619
Sakamoto N, Tozaki M, Higa K, Tsunoda Y, Ogawa T, Abe S, et al. Categorization of non-mass-like breast lesions detected by MRI. Breast Cancer. 2008;15:241–6.
doi: 10.1007/s12282-007-0028-6
Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Fukuda K. Breast MRI using the VIBE sequence: clustered ring enhancement in the differential diagnosis of lesions showing non-masslike enhancement. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:313–21.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0881
Tozaki M, Fukuda K. High-spatial-resolution MRI of non-masslike breast lesions: Interpretation model based on BI-RADS MRI descriptors. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:330–7.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.0998
de Almeida JRM, Gomes AB, Barros TP, Fahel PE, Rocha MDS. Predictive performance of BI-RADS magnetic resonance imaging descriptors in the context of suspicious (category 4) findings. Radiol Bras. 2016;49:137–43.
doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2015.0021
Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Sierra H, Cordova M, et al. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:426–30.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.04.1707
Iima M, Honda M, Sigmund EE, Ohno Kishimoto A, Kataoka M, Togashi K. Diffusion MRI of the breast: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26908 .
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26908
pubmed: 31520518
Liu HL, Zong M, Wei H, Lou JJ, Wang SQ, Zou QG, et al. Differentiation between malignant and benign breast masses: combination of semi-quantitative analysis on DCE-MRI and histogram analysis of ADC maps. Clin Radiol. 2018;73:460–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.026
De Almeida JRM, Gomes AB, Barros TP, Fahel PE, De Seixas RM. Subcategorization of suspicious breast lesions (BI-RADS Category 4) according to MRI criteria: Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:222–31.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13834
Fujiwara K, Yamada T, Kanemaki Y, Okamoto S, Kojima Y, Tsugawa K, et al. Grading system to categorize breast MRI in BI-RADS 5th edition: a multivariate study of breast mass descriptors in terms of probability of malignancy. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:W118–W12727.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.17926
Smith H, Chetlen AL, Schetter S, Mack J, Watts M, Zhu JJ. PPV 3 of suspicious breast MRI findings. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:1553–622.
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.07.013
Strigel RM, Burnside ES, Elezaby M, Fowler AM, Kelcz F, Salkowski LR, et al. Utility of BI-RADS assessment category 4 subdivisions for screening breast MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:1392–9.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16730
Asada T, Yamada T, Kanemaki Y, Fujiwara K, Okamoto S, Nakajima Y. Grading system to categorize breast MRI using BI-RADS 5th edition: a statistical study of non-mass enhancement descriptors in terms of probability of malignancy. Jpn J Radiol. 2018;36:200–8.
doi: 10.1007/s11604-017-0717-9
Liu D, Ba Z, Ni X, Wang L, Yu D, Ma X. Apparent diffusion coefficient to subdivide breast imaging reporting and data system magnetic resonance imaging (BI-RADS-MRI) category 4 lesions. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:2180–8.
doi: 10.12659/MSM.907000
Marino MA, Clauser P, Woitek R, Wengert GJ, Kapetas P, Bernathova M, et al. A simple scoring system for breast MRI interpretation: does it compensate for reader experience? Eur Radiol. 2016;26:2529–37.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4075-7
Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Kamitani T, Soeda H, Setoguchi T, et al. Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:1157–65.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.21570
Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Fukuda K. Positive and negative predictive values of BI-RADS®-MRI descriptors for focal breast masses. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2006;5:7–15.
doi: 10.2463/mrms.5.7
Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, Barclay J, Schwerin EH, Sickles EA, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:35–433.
doi: 10.2214/ajr.175.1.1750035
Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, Bick U, Colin C, Cornford E, et al. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:3669–788.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3807-z