Top

Published in:

Open Access 18-12-2024 | Breast

Can structured integration of BI-RADS criteria by a clinical decision rule reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Giulia Vatteroni, Matthias Dietzel, Pascal A. T. Baltzer

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2025

Abstract

Aim

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigate the added value of structured integration of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria using the Kaiser score (KS) to avoid unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions.

Material and methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using predefined criteria. Eligible articles, published in English until May 2024, dealt with KS in the context of BI-RADS 4 MRI. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, including true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives (FN). Sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio were calculated using bivariate random effects. Fagan nomograms identified the maximum pre-test probability at which post-test probabilities of a negative MRI aligned with the 2% malignancy rate benchmark for downgrading BI-RADS 4 to BI-RADS 3. I² statistics and meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity. p-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Seven studies with 1877 lesions (833 malignant, 1044 benign) were included. The average breast cancer prevalence was 47.3%. Pooled sensitivity was 94.3% (95%-CI 88.9%–97.1%), and pooled specificity was 68.1% (95%-CI 56.6%–77.7%) using a random effects model. Overall, 52/833 cases were FNs (6.2%). Fagan nomograms showed that KS could rule out breast cancer in BI-RADS 4 lesions at a pre-test probability of 20.3% for all lesions, 25.4% for masses, and 15.2% for non-mass lesions.

Conclusions

In MRI-assessed BI-RADS 4 lesions, applying structured BI-RADS criteria with the KS reduces unnecessary biopsies by 70% with a 6.2% FN rate. Breast cancer can be ruled out up to pre-test probabilities of 20.3%.

Key Points

Question What, if any, value is added by structured integration of BI-RADS criteria using the Kaiser Score (KS) to avoid unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions?

Findings The structured integration of BI-RADS criteria using the Kaiser Score (KS) reduces unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions by 70%.

Clinical relevance The structured approach offered by the Kaiser Score (KS) avoids unnecessary recalls, potentially reducing patient anxiety, lessening the burden on medical personnel, and the need for further imaging and biopsies due to more objective and thus efficient clinical decision-making in evaluating BI-RADS 4 lesions.

Available only for authorised users

Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA et al (2015) Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol 25:3669–3678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3807-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mann RM, Athanasiou A, Baltzer PAT et al (2022) Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Eur Radiol 32:4036–4045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08617-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fueger BJ, Clauser P, Kapetas P et al (2021) Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 56:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bennani-Baiti B, Bennani-Baiti N, Baltzer PA (2016) Diagnostic performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging in non-calcified equivocal breast findings: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 11:e0160346. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Spick C, Szolar DHM, Preidler KW et al (2015) Breast MRI used as a problem-solving tool reliably excludes malignancy. Eur J Radiol 84:61–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.005CrossRefPubMed

Baltzer PAT, Krug KB, Dietzel M (2022) Evidence-based and structured diagnosis in breast MRI using the Kaiser score. Rofo 194:1216–1228. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1829-5985CrossRefPubMed

Gommers JJ, Voogd AC, Broeders MJ et al (2021) Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem solving tool in women recalled at biennial screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Breast 60:279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.11.014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stoutjesdijk MJ, Fütterer JJ, Boetes C et al (2005) Variability in the description of morphologic and contrast enhancement characteristics of breast lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 40:355–362. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000163741.16718.3eCrossRefPubMed

Baltzer PAT, Kaiser WA, Dietzel M (2015) Lesion type and reader experience affect the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI: a multiple reader ROC study. Eur J Radiol 84:86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.023CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jansen SA, Shimauchi A, Zak L et al (2011) The diverse pathology and kinetics of mass, nonmass, and focus enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging 33:1382–1389. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22567CrossRef

11.

Baltzer PAT, Sardanelli F (2020) The mantra about low specificity of breast MRI. In: Sardanelli F, Podo F (eds) breast MRI for high-risk screening. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 11–21

12.

Baltzer PAT, Dietzel M, Kaiser WA (2013) A simple and robust classification tree for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions in MR-mammography. Eur Radiol 23:2051–2060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2804-3CrossRefPubMed

13.

Dietzel M, Baltzer PAT (2018) How to use the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for diagnosis in multiparametric breast MRI: a pictorial essay. Insights Imaging 9:325–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-018-0611-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Marino MA, Clauser P, Woitek R et al (2016) A simple scoring system for breast MRI interpretation: does it compensate for reader experience? Eur Radiol 26:2529–2537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4075-7CrossRefPubMed

15.

Dietzel M, Krug B, Clauser P et al (2021) A multicentric comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and the Kaiser score in the assessment of breast lesions. Invest Radiol 56:274–282. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000739CrossRefPubMed

16.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

17.

Cloete DJ, Minne C, Schoub PK, Becker JHR (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging of fibroadenoma-like lesions and correlation with Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System and Kaiser scoring system. South African J Radiol 22. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajr.v22i2.1532

18.

Whiting PF (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009CrossRefPubMed

19.

Woitek R, Spick C, Schernthaner M et al (2017) A simple classification system (the Tree flowchart) for breast MRI can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in MRI-only lesions. Eur Radiol 27:3799–3809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4755-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Jajodia A, Sindhwani G, Pasricha S et al (2021) Application of the Kaiser score to increase diagnostic accuracy in equivocal lesions on diagnostic mammograms referred for MR mammography. Eur J Radiol 134:109413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109413CrossRefPubMed

21.

Meng L, Zhao X, Lu L et al (2021) A comparative assessment of MR BI-RADS 4 breast lesions with Kaiser score and apparent diffusion coefficient value. Front Oncol 11:779642. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.779642CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Wengert GJ, Pipan F, Almohanna J et al (2020) Impact of the Kaiser score on clinical decision-making in BI-RADS 4 mammographic calcifications examined with breast MRI. Eur Radiol 30:1451–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06444-wCrossRefPubMed

23.

Pan J, Huang X, Yang S et al (2023) The added value of apparent diffusion coefficient and microcalcifications to the Kaiser score in the evaluation of BI-RADS 4 lesions. Eur J Radiol 165:110920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110920CrossRefPubMed

24.

An Y, Mao G, Ao W et al (2022) Can DWI provide additional value to Kaiser score in evaluation of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 32:5964–5973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08674-xCrossRefPubMed

25.

Milos RI, Pipan F, Kalovidouri A et al (2020) The Kaiser score reliably excludes malignancy in benign contrast-enhancing lesions classified as BI-RADS 4 on breast MRI high-risk screening exams. Eur Radiol 30:6052–6061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06945-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015CrossRefPubMed

27.

American College of Radiology, D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system; mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, follow-up and outcome monitoring, data dictionary, 5th edition. ACR, American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

28.

Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K et al (2001) Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:889–895. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.1127CrossRefPubMed

29.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052CrossRefPubMed

30.

Spick C, Pinker-Domenig K, Rudas M et al (2014) MRI-only lesions: application of diffusion-weighted imaging obviates unnecessary MR-guided breast biopsies. Eur Radiol 24:1204–1210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3153-6CrossRefPubMed

31.

Spick C, Schernthaner M, Pinker K et al (2016) MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy of MRI-only lesions: a single center experience. Eur Radiol 26:3908–3916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4267-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Sung JS, Stamler S, Brooks J et al (2016) Breast cancers detected at screening MR imaging and mammography in patients at high risk: method of detection reflects tumor histopathologic results. Radiology 280:716–722. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016151419CrossRefPubMed

33.

Zhang B, Guo Z, Lei Z et al (2024) Kaiser score diagnosis of breast MRI lesions: factors associated with false-negative and false-positive results. Eur J Radiol 178:111641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111641CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zhou J, Liu H, Miao H et al (2024) Breast lesions on MRI in mass and non-mass enhancement: Kaiser score and modified Kaiser score + for readers of variable experience. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-10922-1

35.

Bijker N, Donker M, Wesseling J et al (2013) Is DCIS breast cancer, and how do i treat it? Curr Treat Options Oncol 14:75–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-012-0217-1CrossRefPubMed

36.

Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 102:170–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp482CrossRefPubMed

37.

Grippo C, Jagmohan P, Helbich TH et al (2021) Correct determination of the enhancement curve is critical to ensure accurate diagnosis using the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for breast MRI. Eur J Radiol 138:109630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109630CrossRefPubMed

38.

Thomassin-Naggara I, Trop I, Chopier J et al (2011) Nonmasslike enhancement at breast MR imaging: the added value of mammography and US for lesion categorization. Radiology 261:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110190CrossRefPubMed

Title: Can structured integration of BI-RADS criteria by a clinical decision rule reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Giulia Vatteroni
Matthias Dietzel
Pascal A. T. Baltzer
Publication date: 18-12-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 3/2025
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11274-6

Challenges when comparing tomosynthesis and 2D mammography in breast cancer screening

Breast Cancer
Commentary

ESR Essentials: radiomics—practice recommendations by the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics

Open Access
Invited review

Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Multiparametric MRI-based VI-RADS: can it predict 1- to 5-year recurrence of bladder cancer?

Bladder Cancer
Letter to the Editor

Correction: Diagnostic MRI for deep pelvic endometriosis: towards a standardized protocol?

Endometriosis
Correction

Breast density assessment via quantitative sound-speed measurement using conventional ultrasound transducers

Open Access
Mammography
Breast

Reply to Letter to the Editor: “Prediction models for differentiating benign from malignant liver lesions based on multiparametric dual-energy non-contrast CT”

Commentary

Podcast | Sexual health in older age

Springer Medicine

Can structured integration of BI-RADS criteria by a clinical decision rule reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Aim

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Other articles of this Issue 3/2025

Challenges when comparing tomosynthesis and 2D mammography in breast cancer screening

ESR Essentials: radiomics—practice recommendations by the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics

Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Multiparametric MRI-based VI-RADS: can it predict 1- to 5-year recurrence of bladder cancer?

Correction: Diagnostic MRI for deep pelvic endometriosis: towards a standardized protocol?

Breast density assessment via quantitative sound-speed measurement using conventional ultrasound transducers

Reply to Letter to the Editor: “Prediction models for differentiating benign from malignant liver lesions based on multiparametric dual-energy non-contrast CT”

Podcast | Sexual health in older age

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aim

Material and methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Challenges when comparing tomosynthesis and 2D mammography in breast cancer screening

ESR Essentials: radiomics—practice recommendations by the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics

Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Multiparametric MRI-based VI-RADS: can it predict 1- to 5-year recurrence of bladder cancer?

Correction: Diagnostic MRI for deep pelvic endometriosis: towards a standardized protocol?

Breast density assessment via quantitative sound-speed measurement using conventional ultrasound transducers

Reply to Letter to the Editor: “Prediction models for differentiating benign from malignant liver lesions based on multiparametric dual-energy non-contrast CT”