Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Clinical Outcome of Breast Cancer BI-RADS 4 Lesions During 2003-2008 in the National Cancer Institute Thailand

  • Published : 2012.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To determine the clinical outcome of breast cancer BI-RADS 4 lesions and seek a more effective management guideline, we conducted a retrospective study of all BI-RADS4 patients diagnosed between 2003-2008 with follow up time not less than 2 years. A total of 392 cases of BI-RADS 4 were identified and 320 could be sub-categorised as 4a, 4b and 4c. Overall malignant positive results were 7.65, 38.7 and 58.percent, respectively. In all cases assigned to the close follow up group, no malignancy was detectable (P<0.02). The results of the study suggested that BI-RADS sub-categories have benefit for cancer diagnosis and treatment decisions of clinicians and it might be possible to set up a safe follow-up guideline in selected groups of patients to minimize un-necessary tissue biopsy for breast cancer detection.

Keywords

References

  1. Al-Harethee W, Theodorpoulos G, Fillippakis GM, et al (2012). Complications of percutaneous stereotactic vacuum assisted breast biopsy system utilizing radio frequency. Eur J Radiol, Jan 9 [Epub ahead print].
  2. American College of Radiology, 4th edition, 2003
  3. A Van Steen1, R Van Tiggelen (2007). JBR-BTR, 90, 151-3.
  4. Cholatip W, Weeraya B, Bussanee W, (2010). Biopsy rate and positive predictive value for breast cancer in BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions. J Med Assoc Thai, 93, 830-7.
  5. Edward A S (1991). Periodic mammographic follow up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Pathology, 179, 463-8.
  6. Hamy AS, Giacchettti S, Abiter M, et al (2011). BI-RADS categorization of 2708 consecutive nonpalpable breast lesions in patients referred to a dedicated breast care unit. Eur Radiol, Jul 16 [Epub ahead of print].
  7. Harmine M Z, Emile G C, Joe H (1999). Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology, 213, 413-22 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv05413
  8. Jacobs IA, Chevinsky AH, Diehl W, et al (2001). Advanced breast biopsy instrumentation (ABBI) and management of nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a community hospital Experience. Breast, 10, 421-6. https://doi.org/10.1054/brst.2000.0272
  9. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS (2006). BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology, 239, 385-91. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2392042127
  10. Mark H, Debra I, Dorit A (1991). Localization and needle aspiration of breast lesions: complications in 370 cases. AJR, 10, 711-4.
  11. Mary B Barton, Debra S Morley, Sera Moore, et al (2004). J Natl Cancer Inst, 96, 529-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh083
  12. Medina-Franco H, Abarca-Perez L, Cortes-Gonzalez R, et al (2005). Fine needle aspiration biopsy of breast lesions: institutional experience. Rev Invest Clin, 57, 394-8.
  13. Oswald G, Thomas H, Michael H, et al (2004). Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and ultrasound: can biopsy be averted? Radiology, 12, 850-6.
  14. Resende LM, Matias MA, Oliveira GM, et al (2008). Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) and Le Gal's classifications. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstretic, 30, 75-9
  15. Retsky MW, Demicheli R, Hrushesky W (2001). Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years: screening may not be the benign process usually thought. J Natl Cancer Inst, 93, 1572.
  16. Sanders MA, Roland L, Sahoo S (2010). Clinical implications of subcategorizing BI-RADS 4 breast lesions associated with microcalcification: a radiology-pathology correlation study. Breast J, 16, 28-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00863.x
  17. Steve H P, Anita J K, ONE AUTHOR, et al (2000). Sonographically guided directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy using a handheld device. Radiol, 215, 694-7 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.215.3.r00jn37694
  18. Susan G Orel, Nicole Kay, Carol Reynolds, et al (1999). BIRADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology, 211, 845-50. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn31845
  19. Tarhar I, Duffy SW, Vitak B, et al. 1999. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer, 86, 449-62 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990801)86:3<449::AID-CNCR13>3.0.CO;2-Q
  20. Tonegutti M, Girardi V (2008). Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 268 nonpalpable lesions. Radiol Med, 113, 65-75 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-008-0226-0
  21. Wanaporn B, Ornsiri A (2011). Accuracy of subcategories A,B,C in BI-RADS 4 lesions by combined mammography and breast ultrasound findings. J Med Sci, 2, 728-33.
  22. Wendie A, Cristina C, Patricia L, et al (2000). Breast imaging reporting and data system. Inter- and intra observer variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR, 174, 1769-77. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741769
  23. Wong TT, Cheung PS, Ma MK, et al (2005). Experience of stereotactic breast biopsy using the vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy device and the advanced breast biopsy instrumentation in Hong Kong. Asian J Surg, 28, 18-23 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60252-9
  24. 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. Eur Radiol, 10, 1743-50.

Cited by

  1. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast as a Problem-solving Method: To Be or Not to Be? vol.20, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12334
  2. Can strain elastography combined with ultrasound breast imaging reporting and data system be a more effective method in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions? vol.44, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-017-0772-y
  3. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database vol.287, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017170770