BI-RADS Categorization As a Predictor of Malignancy

PURPOSE: To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 0, 2, 3, 4, and 5 by using BI-RADS terminology and by auditing data on needle localizations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 1991 and December 1996, 1,400 mammographically guided needle localizations were performed in 1,109 patients. Information entered into the mammographic database included where the initial mammography was performed (inside vs outside the institution), BI-RADS category, mammographic finding, and histopathologic findings. A recorded recommendation was available for 1,312 localizations in 1,097 patients, who composed the study population.

RESULTS: The 1,312 localizations yielded 449 (34%) cancers (139 [31%] were ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]; 310 [69%] were invasive cancers) and 863 (66%) benign lesions. There were 15 (1%) category 0 lesions; the PPV was 13% (two of 15 lesions). There were 50 (4%) category 2 lesions; the PPV was 0% (0 of 40 lesions). There were 141 (11%) category 3 lesions; the PPV was 2% (three of 141 lesions). The three cancers in this group were all non-comedotype DCIS. There were 936 (71%) category 4 lesions; the PPV was 30% (279 of 936 lesions). There were 170 (13%) category 5 lesions; the PPV was 97% (165 of 170 lesions).

CONCLUSION: Placing mammographic lesions into BI-RADS categories is useful for predicting the presence of malignancy. Perhaps, most important, a lesion placed into BI-RADS category 3 is highly predictive of benignity, and short-term interval follow-up as an alternative to biopsy would decrease the number of biopsies performed in benign lesions.

References

  • 1 Hall FM, Storella JM, Silverstone DZ, Wyshak G. Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendation for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology 1988; 167:353-358. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ciatto S, Cataliotti L, Distante V. Nonpalpable lesions detected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cases. Radiology 1987; 165:99-102. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Linver MN, Osuch JR, Brenner RJ, Smith RA. The mammography audit: a primer for the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA). AJR 1995; 165:19-25. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. Radiology 1988; 168:661-663. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178:155-158. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 1989; 171:645-646. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1089-1096. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 2nd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1995. Google Scholar
  • 9 Colton T. Statistics in medicine Boston, Mass: Little Brown, 1974; 163. Google Scholar
  • 10 Bassett LW. Standardized reporting for mammography: BI-RADS. Breast J 1997; 3:207-210. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 D'Orsi CJ. American College of Radiology mammography lexicon: an initial attempt to standardize terminology. AJR 1996; 166:779-780. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results of 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409-414. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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 1998; 171:35-40. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: June 1999