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 ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 6/2018

01-06-2018 | Breast

Does patient age affect the PPV3 of ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound categories 4 and 5 in the diagnostic setting?

Authors: Yue Hu, Yaping Yang, Ran Gu, Liang Jin, Shiyu Shen, Fengtao Liu, Hongli Wang, Jingsi Mei, Xiaofang Jiang, Qiang Liu, Fengxi Su

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To calculate the positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3) of the Ultrasound section of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (ACR BI-RADS US) atlas categories 4 and 5 in different age groups and to determine whether patient age influences the PPV3 of each category in the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Methods

We identified 2,433 ACR BI-RADS US categories 4 and 5 lesions with a known pathological diagnosis in 2,433 women. The patients were classified into three age groups (<35, 35–50, and >50 years). The age-related PPV3 of each category in the three age groups were calculated based on the pathological diagnoses and compared using the chi-squared test.

Results

The overall PPV3 of each category was within the reference range provided by the ACR in 2013. PPV3 gradually increased with increasing age in patients with category 4 lesions. PPV3 in the oldest group with subcategories 4A and 4B lesions were close to or exceeded the reference values.

Conclusions

PPV3 and age were significantly associated in patients with category 4 lesions according to the newest edition of ACR BI-RADS US in the diagnostic setting. Closer attention should be given to older patients when assigning a final assessment category.

Key points

• In patients with category 4 lesions , the likelihood of malignancy is associated with age.
• In patients with category 5 lesions, the association is not definite.
• Closer attention should be given to older patients in applying the ACR BI-RADS US.
Literature
1.
Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 151(727–737):w237–w242
2.
Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164:244–255CrossRefPubMed
3.
4.
5.
Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Chen Z, Nagata C, Gram IT (2007) Ethnic and geographic differences in mammographic density and their association with breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 104:47–56CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087CrossRefPubMed
8.
Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164:256–267CrossRefPubMed
9.
Huang Y, Dai H, Song F et al (2016) Preliminary effectiveness of breast cancer screening among 1.22 million Chinese females and different cancer patterns between urban and rural women. Sci Rep 6:39459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
11.
12.
Shen S, Zhou Y, Xu Y et al (2015) A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer 112:998–1004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W, Merritt C, Rubin E (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. American College of Radiology, Reston
14.
Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound. In: ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston
15.
Howlader N, Noone A, Krapcho M et al (2015) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2011. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda
16.
Ohuchi N, Suzuki A, Sobue T et al (2016) Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387:341–348CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zou X, Wang J, Lan X et al (2016) Assessment of diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of categories 4 and 5 of the second edition of the BI-RADS ultrasound lexicon in diagnosing breast lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 42:2065–2071CrossRefPubMed
18.
Elverici E, Barca AN, Aktas H et al (2015) Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Diagn Interv Radiol 21:189–194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Berg WA (2003) Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1225–1228CrossRefPubMed
20.
Fu CY, Hsu HH, Yu JC et al (2011) Influence of age on PPV of sonographic BI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5. Ultraschall Med 32(Suppl 1):S8–13PubMed
21.
Patterson SK, Neal CH, Jeffries DO et al (2014) Outcomes of solid palpable masses assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4A: a retrospective review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 147:311–316CrossRefPubMed
22.
Benndorf M, Wu Y, Burnside ES (2016) A history of breast cancer and older age allow risk stratification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 ratings in the diagnostic setting. Clin Imaging 40:200–204CrossRefPubMed
23.
Yoon JH, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Kim EK (2011) Subcategorization of ultrasonographic BI-RADS category 4: positive predictive value and clinical factors affecting it. Ultrasound Med Biol 37:693–699CrossRefPubMed
24.
Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL (2010) US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics 30:1199–1213CrossRefPubMed
25.
Baek SE, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Youk JH, Lee HJ, Son EJ (2009) Effect of clinical information on diagnostic performance in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 28:1349–1356CrossRefPubMed
26.
Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL (2008) BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management – follow-up and outcome. Radiology 248:773–781CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kim JY, Jung EJ, Park T et al (2015) Prognostic importance of ultrasound BI-RADS classification in breast cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 45:411–415CrossRefPubMed
28.
Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M et al (2010) Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 30:1183–1198CrossRefPubMed
29.
Yoo JL, Woo OH, Kim YK et al (2010) Can MR Imaging contribute in characterizing well-circumscribed breast carcinomas? Radiographics 30:1689–1702CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Does patient age affect the PPV3 of ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound categories 4 and 5 in the diagnostic setting?
Authors
Yue Hu
Yaping Yang
Ran Gu
Liang Jin
Shiyu Shen
Fengtao Liu
Hongli Wang
Jingsi Mei
Xiaofang Jiang
Qiang Liu
Fengxi Su
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5203-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

European Radiology 6/2018 Go to the issue

Radiological Education

Determining procedures for simulation-based training in radiology: a nationwide needs assessment

Gastrointestinal

Demystifying liver iron concentration measurements with MRI

Oncology

Whole-body ultra-low dose CT using spectral shaping for detection of osteolytic lesion in multiple myeloma

Breast

Apparent diffusion coefficient mapping using diffusion-weighted MRI: impact of background parenchymal enhancement, amount of fibroglandular tissue and menopausal status on breast cancer diagnosis

Magnetic Resonance

To evaluate the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting unusual site ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study

Head and Neck

Evaluation of pain during high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of benign thyroid nodules