Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 9/2013

01-09-2013 | Breast

Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings

Authors: J. M. H. Timmers, A. L. M. Verbeek, J. IntHout, R. M. Pijnappel, M. J. M. Broeders, G. J. den Heeten

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To develop a prediction model for breast cancer based on common mammographic findings on screening mammograms aiming to reduce reader variability in assigning BI-RADS.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 352 positive screening mammograms of women participating in the Dutch screening programme (Nijmegen region, 2006–2008). The following mammographic findings were assessed by consensus reading of three expert radiologists: masses and mass density, calcifications, architectural distortion, focal asymmetry and mammographic density, and BI-RADS. Data on age, diagnostic workup and final diagnosis were collected from patient records. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to build a breast cancer prediction model, presented as a nomogram.

Results

Breast cancer was diagnosed in 108 cases (31 %). The highest positive predictive value (PPV) was found for spiculated masses (96 %) and the lowest for well-defined masses (10 %). Characteristics included in the nomogram are age, mass, calcifications, architectural distortion and focal asymmetry.

Conclusion

With our nomogram we developed a tool assisting screening radiologists in determining the chance of malignancy based on mammographic findings. We propose cutoff values for assigning BI-RADS in the Dutch programme based on our nomogram, which will need to be validated in future research. These values can easily be adapted for use in other screening programmes.

Key points

• There is substantial reader variability in assigning BI-RADS in mammographic screening.
• There are no strict guidelines linking mammographic findings to BI-RADS categories.
• We developed a model (nomogram) predicting the presence of breast cancer.
• Our nomogram is based on common findings on positive screening mammograms.
• The nomogram aims to assist screening radiologists in assigning BI-RADS categories.
Literature
1.
American College of Radiology (2008) ACR practice guideline for the performance of screening and diagnostic mammography (2008); American College of Radiology, editor. Preston (Va)
2.
Zonderland HM, Pope TL Jr, Nieborg AJ (2004) 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. EurRadiology 14:1743–1750
3.
Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC (1999) BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 211:845–850PubMed
4.
Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR et al (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR AmJRoentgenol 171:35–40CrossRef
5.
Shin HJ, Kim HH, Ko MS, Kim HJ et al (2010) BI-RADS descriptors for mammographically detected microcalcifications verified by histopathology after needle-localized open breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1466–1471PubMedCrossRef
6.
Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles EA, Smith-Bindman R (2009) Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 250:648–657PubMedCrossRef
7.
Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR, Evans AJ et al (1996) The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions. Clin Radiol 51:277–281PubMedCrossRef
8.
Mazouni C, Sneige N, Rouzier R, Balleyguier C et al (2010) A nomogram to predict for malignant diagnosis of BI-RADS Category 4 breast lesions. J Surg Oncol 102:220–224PubMedCrossRef
9.
Holland R, Rijken HJ, Hendriks JH (2007) The Dutch population-based mammography screening: 30-years experience. Breast Care 2:12–18CrossRef
10.
Timmers JM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Zonderland HM, van Tinteren H et al (2012) The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool. Eur Radiol 22:5CrossRef
11.
Nationaal Borstkanker Overleg Nederland (2008) National Guideline “Breast Cancer”. Amsterdam
12.
American College of Radiology (2003) ACR BI-RADS®-Mammography: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas; American College of Radiology, editor. Preston (Va)
13.
National Evaluation Team for Breast cancer screening (2009) National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands, 1990–2007. NETB, Rotterdam
14.
R. Foundation for Statistical Computing (2008) R: A language and environment for statistical computing
15.
Kleinbaum D (2010) Logistic Regression: a self-learning text. Springer, New YorkCrossRef
16.
Sardanelli F, de Leo G (2009) Biostatistics for radiologists. 1st edn. Springer Milan, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York
17.
James JJ, Gilbert FJ, Wallis MG, Gillan MG, Astley SM et al (2010) Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II. Radiology 256:379–386PubMedCrossRef
18.
Khan KS, Chien PF, Dwarakanath LS (1999) Logistic regression models in obstetrics and gynecology literature. Obstet Gynecol 93:1014–1020PubMedCrossRef
19.
Onega T, Smith M, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA, Geller BA et al (2012) Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type. J Am Coll Radiol 9:788–794PubMedCrossRef
20.
Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 19:716–723CrossRef
21.
Redondo A, Comas M, Macia F, Ferrer F, Murta-Nascimento C, et al. (2012) Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms. Br J Radiol. 2012 Sep 19
22.
Timmers JM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Verbeek AL, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJ (2012) A dedicated BI-RADS training programme: effect on the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists. Eur J Radiol 81:2184–2188PubMedCrossRef
23.
Marko NF, Xu Z, Gao T, Kattan MW, Weil RJ (2011) Predicting survival in women with breast cancer and brain metastasis: a nomogram outperforms current survival prediction models. Cancer. 2011 Dec 16
24.
Shin HC, Han W, Moon HG, Cho N, Moon WK, et al. (2012) Nomogram for predicting positive resection margins after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jun 13
25.
National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer screening (2013) Preliminary results breast cancer creening programme in the Netherlands 2011. NETB, Rotterdam
Metadata
Title
Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings
Authors
J. M. H. Timmers
A. L. M. Verbeek
J. IntHout
R. M. Pijnappel
M. J. M. Broeders
G. J. den Heeten
Publication date
01-09-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2836-8

Other articles of this Issue 9/2013

European Radiology 9/2013 Go to the issue

Oncology

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intra-abdominal sites of implants to predict likelihood of suboptimal cytoreductive surgery in patients with ovarian carcinoma

Head and Neck

Quantitative assessment of shear-wave ultrasound elastography in thyroid nodules: diagnostic performance for predicting malignancy

Urogenital

Preliminary observations and clinical value of lipid peak in high-grade uterine sarcomas using in vivo proton MR spectroscopy

Magnetic Resonance

Diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced, contrast-enhanced perfusion and angiographic MRI sequences for pulmonary embolism diagnosis: results of independent sequence readings

Musculoskeletal

Traumatic instability of the elbow - anatomy, pathomechanisms and presentation on imaging

Musculoskeletal

Diagnostic performance of MRI measurements to assess hindfoot malalignment. An assessment of four measurement techniques