18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Interobserver variability and likelihood of malignancy for fifth edition BI-RADS MRI descriptors in non-mass breast lesions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Non-mass enhancement (NME) in breast MRI is the most common feature of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We sought to evaluate the interobserver variability and positive predictive value (PPV) for malignancy of NME descriptors using the fifth edition BI-RADS lexicon focusing on the newly introduced “clustered ring enhancement” pattern.

          Materials and methods

          Breast MRIs of 129 patients who had undergone MRI-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) in our institution were reviewed. Studies assessed as NME were classified according to the fifth edition BI-RADS lexicon by two breast radiologists. Consensus was reached by involving a third radiologist. Interobserver variability and PPV for malignancy were assessed.

          Results

          Seventy-two of 129 studies were assessed as NME. The disagreement rate in the first assessment step (mass vs. NME) was low at 9.3% ( ĸ = 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.91). The disagreement rate for distribution patterns was 23.6% ( ĸ = 0.67, 95% CI 0.54–0.80) and 22.2% ( ĸ = 0.69, 95% CI 0.56–0.81) for internal enhancement patterns. Clustered ring enhancement (PPV 53.85, p = 0.038) and segmental distribution (PPV 62.5%, p = 0.028) had the highest malignancy rates among internal enhancement and distribution patterns with a significant result; the combination of clustered ring enhancement and segmental distribution raised the malignancy rate by approximately 4% (PPV 66.67%, p = 0.049).

          Conclusion

          There was a high agreement rate among readers when differentiating NME from mass lesions. The agreement rate was lower when assessing the distribution and internal enhancement pattern descriptors, but still substantial. The descriptors clustered ring enhancement and segmental distribution were significant predictors of malignancy.

          Key Points

          • Non-mass enhancement is a common morphological feature of non-invasive breast cancer (DCIS) in MRI. Differentiation between potentially malignant and benign changes may be very challenging.

          • Since clustered ring enhancement and segmental distribution are both significant predictors of malignancy, the awareness of this important finding, combined with high-quality image interpretation skills, may improve the tumor detection rate.

          • The combination of clustered ring enhancement and segmental distribution increases the positive predictive value for malignancy, which may be relevant for clinical practice .

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

          To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests. (c) RSNA, 2004.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A Pictorial Review of Changes in the BI-RADS Fifth Edition.

            Initially developed in 1993, the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon serves to standardize breast imaging reports, improve communication with referring physicians, and provide a quality assurance tool. The long-awaited BI-RADS fifth edition consolidates, improves, and expands the lexicon for mammography, breast ultrasonography (US), and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. The new edition has increased the number of imaging examples to nearly 600. The breast MR imaging lexicon is significantly expanded since it first appeared in the fourth edition. New terms have been added to the US lexicon to reflect technologic advances. Minor but important changes have been made to the mammography section. Calcification descriptors in the lexicon are now consolidated into two categories: benign and suspicious. The controversial "intermediate concern" grouping has been eliminated, and a table in the lexicon summarizes the literature supporting the recommendation to biopsy such calcifications. New descriptors such as "developing asymmetry" are illustrated, and abstracts are provided to reference their significance. A generous guidance section is included after the lexicon description for each modality. Useful frequently asked questions are succinctly answered, and the literature to support each answer is included in the reference section for each modality. This review article illustrates and highlights changes to the BI-RADS lexicon and provides readers with a general overview to familiarize them with the fifth edition. (©)RSNA, 2016.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              False-positive findings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI-RADS descriptor study.

              Breast MRI has high sensitivity in breast cancer detection, and the BI-RADS MRI lexicon was a step toward standardized description of lesions. However, false-positive findings occur and lead to unnecessary biopsy. The purpose of this investigation was to identify criteria for false-positive findings in clinical practice. Eligible for investigation were all breast MRI examinations from a consecutive 16-month time period that had histopathologic verification and findings classified as BI-RADS category 4-6 in the initial MRI report. Accordingly, 132 patients with 120 malignant and 31 benign lesions were enrolled. Two blinded observers categorized lesions into mass or nonmass and used BI-RADS to identify descriptor distribution differences between the benign and malignant subgroups. The ratio of mass to nonmass lesions differed significantly (p < 0.001) between benign (1.2:1) and malignant (7:1) findings. Seventeen mass and 14 nonmass lesions were false-positive, and 105 mass and 15 nonmass lesions were true-positive. Among mass lesions, it was possible to differentiate malignant and benign lesions on the basis of margin (smooth, irregular, or spiculated) and dynamic enhancement features (p < 0.05). Among nonmass lesions, only stippled enhancement had a significant difference between the subgroups (p < 0.05). Tumor diameter had no influence on the correct diagnosis of nonmass lesions (p = 0.301). Conversely, among mass lesions, false-positive lesions were smaller than true-positive lesions (p = 0.01). Nonmass lesions were the major cause of false-positive breast MRI findings. BI-RADS descriptors are not sufficient for differentiating benign and malignant nonmass lesions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Magdalena.Lunkiewicz@ksb.ch
                Journal
                Eur Radiol
                Eur Radiol
                European Radiology
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0938-7994
                1432-1084
                7 August 2019
                7 August 2019
                2020
                : 30
                : 1
                : 77-86
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.482962.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0508 7512, Department of Radiology, , Kantonsspital Baden, ; Im Ergel 1, CH-5404 Baden, Switzerland
                [2 ]Medizinisch Radiologisches Institut (MRI) Bahnhofplatz, Bahnhofplatz 3, 8001 Zürich, Switzerland
                [3 ]GRID grid.482962.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0508 7512, Department of Pathology, , Kantonsspital Baden, ; Im Ergel 1, CH-5404 Baden, Switzerland
                [4 ]GRID grid.482962.3, ISNI 0000 0004 0508 7512, Department of Gynaecology, , Kantonsspital Baden, ; Im Ergel 1, CH-5404 Baden, Switzerland
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-8697
                Article
                6312
                10.1007/s00330-019-06312-7
                6890614
                31392476
                c5fa350f-84f5-4d91-a07c-d5b09e1125dc
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 23 March 2019
                : 20 May 2019
                : 7 June 2019
                Categories
                Breast
                Custom metadata
                © European Society of Radiology 2020

                Radiology & Imaging
                image-guided biopsy,dcis,breast,magnetic resonance imaging,interobserver variability

                Comments

                Comment on this article