Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2012

01-05-2012 | Breast Oncology

Scoring System Based on BI-RADS Lexicon to Predict Probability of Malignancy in Suspicious Microcalcifications

Authors: Ji Hyun Youk, MD, Eun Ju Son, MD, Jeong-Ah Kim, MD, Hee Jung Moon, MD, Min Jung Kim, MD, Chung Hyun Choi, MSc, Eun-Kyung Kim, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 5/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To develop a scoring system allowing quantification of the probability of malignancy of suspicious microcalcifications based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).

Methods

A total of 163 microcalcification lesions surgically excised in 147 women (aged 28–65 years) were included. Two radiologists independently reviewed each lesion with BI-RADS (4th edition). The interobserver agreement and positive predictive value (PPV) for each descriptor were determined and multivariate analysis was used to develop a scoring system. The scores were compared between benign and malignant lesions and among BI-RADS categories by using the two-sample t-test or the analysis of variance. To assess the discriminative power of the scoring system, the area under the receiver–operating characteristic curve (AUC) and cutoff values for categorization were determined. For the test of the scoring system, the validation data set from a different facility was applied.

Results

Interobserver agreement was fair to moderate for distribution, morphology, and category (κ = 0.45, 0.40, and 0.37). PPVs were significantly different among BI-RADS descriptors and categories (P < 0.0001). Of the scoring system developed, the AUC was 0.75. The scores between benign and malignant lesions were significantly different. By means of cutoff values, PPV in category 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 was 7.0%, 15.0%, 44.8%, and 83.3%, respectively. For the validation data set, the AUC was 0.79 and the PPV in category 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 was 9.4%, 24.1%, 62.5%, and 80.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

In suspicious microcalcifications, our scoring system based on BI-RADS (4th edition) could help to derive a specific final category with good stratification of the probability of malignancy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system—mammography. In: American College of Radiology, ed. Breast imaging reporting and data system. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system—mammography. In: American College of Radiology, ed. Breast imaging reporting and data system. 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
2.
go back to reference Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Williford ME, Floyd CE Jr. Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology. 1995;196:817–22.PubMed Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, Williford ME, Floyd CE Jr. Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology. 1995;196:817–22.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35–40.PubMed Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35–40.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Berube M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Oliva D. Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1998;49:223–8.PubMed Berube M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Oliva D. Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1998;49:223–8.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999;211:845–50.PubMed Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999;211:845–50.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Gulsun M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyurek M. Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System criteria and Le Gal’s classification. Eur J Radiol. 2003;47:227–31.PubMedCrossRef Gulsun M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyurek M. Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System criteria and Le Gal’s classification. Eur J Radiol. 2003;47:227–31.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1027–36.PubMedCrossRef Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E. Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:1027–36.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ, et al. Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology. 2007;242:388–95.PubMedCrossRef Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ, et al. Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology. 2007;242:388–95.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology. 2006;239:385–91.PubMedCrossRef Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology. 2006;239:385–91.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bent CK, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Sayre JW. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1378–83.PubMedCrossRef Bent CK, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Sayre JW. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1378–83.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Muller-Schimpfle M, Wersebe A, Xydeas T, et al. Microcalcifications of the breast: how does radiologic classification correlate with histology? Acta Radiol. 2005;46:774–81.PubMedCrossRef Muller-Schimpfle M, Wersebe A, Xydeas T, et al. Microcalcifications of the breast: how does radiologic classification correlate with histology? Acta Radiol. 2005;46:774–81.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ko E, Han W, Lee JW, et al. Scoring system for predicting malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia at ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;112:189–95.PubMedCrossRef Ko E, Han W, Lee JW, et al. Scoring system for predicting malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia at ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;112:189–95.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference American College of Radiology. In: American College of Radiology, editor. Breast imaging reporting and data system. 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998. p. 58–181. American College of Radiology. In: American College of Radiology, editor. Breast imaging reporting and data system. 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998. p. 58–181.
15.
go back to reference D’Orsi CJ, Newell MS. BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:751–63.PubMedCrossRef D’Orsi CJ, Newell MS. BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:751–63.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Cosar ZS, Cetin M, Tepe TK, Cetin R, Zarali AC. Concordance of mammographic classifications of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis: utility of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (fourth edition). Clin Imaging. 2005;29:389–95.PubMedCrossRef Cosar ZS, Cetin M, Tepe TK, Cetin R, Zarali AC. Concordance of mammographic classifications of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis: utility of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (fourth edition). Clin Imaging. 2005;29:389–95.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–77.PubMed Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1769–77.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Sickles EA. Auditing your breast imaging practice: an evidence-based approach. Semin Roentgenol. 2007;42:211–7.PubMedCrossRef Sickles EA. Auditing your breast imaging practice: an evidence-based approach. Semin Roentgenol. 2007;42:211–7.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Scoring System Based on BI-RADS Lexicon to Predict Probability of Malignancy in Suspicious Microcalcifications
Authors
Ji Hyun Youk, MD
Eun Ju Son, MD
Jeong-Ah Kim, MD
Hee Jung Moon, MD
Min Jung Kim, MD
Chung Hyun Choi, MSc
Eun-Kyung Kim, MD
Publication date
01-05-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2167-4

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Annals of Surgical Oncology 5/2012 Go to the issue