Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013

Open Access 01-06-2013 | Clinical Trial

Reducing false-positive biopsies: a pilot study to reduce benign biopsy rates for BI-RADS 4A/B assessments through testing risk stratification and new thresholds for intervention

Authors: Chris I. Flowers, Cristina O’Donoghue, Dan Moore, Adeline Goss, Danny Kim, June-Ho Kim, Sjoerd G. Elias, Julia Fridland, Laura J. Esserman

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS) 4A/B subcategory risk estimates for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive cancer (IC), determining whether changing the proposed cutoffs to a higher biopsy threshold could safely increase cancer-to-biopsy yields while minimizing false-positive biopsies. A prospective clinical trial was performed to evaluate BI-RADS 4 lesions from women seen in clinic between January 2006 and March 2007. An experienced radiologist prospectively estimated a percent risk-estimate for DCIS and IC. Truth was determined by histopathology or 4-year follow-up negative for malignancy. Risk estimates were used to generate receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Biopsy rates, cancer-to-biopsy yields, and type of malignancies missed were then calculated across postulated risk thresholds. A total of 124 breast lesions were evaluated from 213 women. An experienced radiologist gave highly accurate risk estimates for IC, DCIS alone, or the combination with an area under ROC curve of 0.91 (95 % CI 0.84–0.99) (p < 0.001), 0.81 (95 % CI 0.69–0.93) (p = 0.011), and 0.89 (95 % CI 0.83–0.95) (p < 0.001), respectively. The cancer-to-biopsy yield was 30 %. Three hypothetical thresholds for intervention were analyzed: (1) DCIS or IC ≥ 10 %; (2) DCIS ≥ 50 % or IC ≥ 10 %; and (3) IC ≥ 10 %, which translated to 22, 48, and 56 % of biopsies avoided; cancer-to-biopsy yields of 36, 47, and 46 %; and associated chance of missing an IC of 0, 1, and 2 %, respectively. Expert radiologists estimate risk of IC and DCIS with a high degree of accuracy. Increasing the cut off point for recommending biopsy, substituting with a short-term follow-up protocol with biopsy if any change, may safely reduce the number of false-positive biopsies.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Esserman L et al (2002) Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(5):369–375PubMedCrossRef Esserman L et al (2002) Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(5):369–375PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155(8):493–502PubMedCrossRef Kerlikowske K et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155(8):493–502PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bent CK et al (2010) The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(5):1378–1383PubMedCrossRef Bent CK et al (2010) The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(5):1378–1383PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Weaver DL et al (2006) Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. Cancer 106(4):732–742PubMedCrossRef Weaver DL et al (2006) Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography. Cancer 106(4):732–742PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Thorsen C, Eklund M, Ozanne E, Esserman LJ (2010) The Number of Screening Breast Biopsies Performed in the United States in 2010. In: American College of Surgeons 98th Clinical Congress 2012, Chicago, IL, USA Thorsen C, Eklund M, Ozanne E, Esserman LJ (2010) The Number of Screening Breast Biopsies Performed in the United States in 2010. In: American College of Surgeons 98th Clinical Congress 2012, Chicago, IL, USA
6.
go back to reference Smith-Bindman R et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 290(16):2129–2137CrossRef Smith-Bindman R et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 290(16):2129–2137CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Hubbard RA et al (2011) Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155(8):481–492PubMedCrossRef Hubbard RA et al (2011) Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155(8):481–492PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Blanchard K et al (2006) Long-term risk of false-positive screening results and subsequent biopsy as a function of mammography use. Radiology 240(2):335–342PubMedCrossRef Blanchard K et al (2006) Long-term risk of false-positive screening results and subsequent biopsy as a function of mammography use. Radiology 240(2):335–342PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Baker SG, Kramer BS (2008) Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive under a regimen involving various types of cancer screening tests. J Med Screen 15(1):18–22PubMedCrossRef Baker SG, Kramer BS (2008) Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive under a regimen involving various types of cancer screening tests. J Med Screen 15(1):18–22PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146(7):502–510PubMedCrossRef Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146(7):502–510PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Zagouri F et al (2008) Pain in different methods of breast biopsy: emphasis on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Breast 17(1):71–75PubMedCrossRef Zagouri F et al (2008) Pain in different methods of breast biopsy: emphasis on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Breast 17(1):71–75PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Yazici B et al (2006) Scar formation after stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy of benign breast lesions. Clin Radiol 61(7):619–624PubMedCrossRef Yazici B et al (2006) Scar formation after stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy of benign breast lesions. Clin Radiol 61(7):619–624PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Geller BM et al (2006) Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations. Radiology 241(1):67–75PubMedCrossRef Geller BM et al (2006) Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations. Radiology 241(1):67–75PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Poplack SP et al (2000) Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 217(3):832–840PubMed Poplack SP et al (2000) Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 217(3):832–840PubMed
15.
go back to reference D’Orsi CJ, Bassett L, Berg WA et al. (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: mammography, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA D’Orsi CJ, Bassett L, Berg WA et al. (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: mammography, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
16.
go back to reference Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography, 5th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology (in press) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography, 5th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology (in press)
17.
go back to reference Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I (2009) Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302(15):1685–1692PubMedCrossRef Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I (2009) Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302(15):1685–1692PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bleyer A, Welch HG (2012) Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 367(21):1998–2005PubMedCrossRef Bleyer A, Welch HG (2012) Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med 367(21):1998–2005PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Ozanne EM et al (2011) Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129(1):165–173PubMedCrossRef Ozanne EM et al (2011) Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129(1):165–173PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Evans AJ, Blanks RG (2002) Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ? Clin Radiol 57(12):1086–1089PubMedCrossRef Evans AJ, Blanks RG (2002) Should breast screening programmes limit their detection of ductal carcinoma in situ? Clin Radiol 57(12):1086–1089PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC (2009) Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 339:b2587PubMedCrossRef Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC (2009) Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ 339:b2587PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Kettritz U (2008) Modern concepts of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its diagnosis through percutaneous biopsy. Eur Radiol 18(2):343–350PubMedCrossRef Kettritz U (2008) Modern concepts of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its diagnosis through percutaneous biopsy. Eur Radiol 18(2):343–350PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Page DL et al (1995) Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15–25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy. Cancer 76(7):1197–1200PubMedCrossRef Page DL et al (1995) Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15–25 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy. Cancer 76(7):1197–1200PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Sanders ME et al (2005) The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 103(12):2481–2484PubMedCrossRef Sanders ME et al (2005) The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 103(12):2481–2484PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hughes LL et al (2009) Local excision alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5319–5324PubMedCrossRef Hughes LL et al (2009) Local excision alone without irradiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5319–5324PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Collins LC et al (2005) Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer 103(9):1778–1784PubMedCrossRef Collins LC et al (2005) Outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ untreated after diagnostic biopsy: results from the Nurses’ Health Study. Cancer 103(9):1778–1784PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Jensen RA, Page DL (2003) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: impact of pathology on therapeutic decisions. Am J Surg Pathol 27(6):828–831PubMedCrossRef Jensen RA, Page DL (2003) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: impact of pathology on therapeutic decisions. Am J Surg Pathol 27(6):828–831PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Andersson I, Janzon L, Sigfusson BF (1985) Mammographic breast cancer screening—a randomized trial in Malmo, Sweden. Maturitas 7(1):21–29PubMedCrossRef Andersson I, Janzon L, Sigfusson BF (1985) Mammographic breast cancer screening—a randomized trial in Malmo, Sweden. Maturitas 7(1):21–29PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Consolidated Guidance on Standards for the NHS Breast Screening Programme (2005) NHSBSP Publication No 60 (Version 2), April 2005. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield Consolidated Guidance on Standards for the NHS Breast Screening Programme (2005) NHSBSP Publication No 60 (Version 2), April 2005. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Sheffield
30.
go back to reference Kalager M et al (2012) Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann Intern Med 156(7):491–499PubMedCrossRef Kalager M et al (2012) Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann Intern Med 156(7):491–499PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Nelson HD et al. (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 151(10):727–737, W237–42 Nelson HD et al. (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 151(10):727–737, W237–42
33.
go back to reference Esserman L, Thompson I (2010) Solving the overdiagnosis dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(9):582–583PubMedCrossRef Esserman L, Thompson I (2010) Solving the overdiagnosis dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(9):582–583PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Reducing false-positive biopsies: a pilot study to reduce benign biopsy rates for BI-RADS 4A/B assessments through testing risk stratification and new thresholds for intervention
Authors
Chris I. Flowers
Cristina O’Donoghue
Dan Moore
Adeline Goss
Danny Kim
June-Ho Kim
Sjoerd G. Elias
Julia Fridland
Laura J. Esserman
Publication date
01-06-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2576-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2013 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine