Correlation between ultrasound BI-RADS® categories and histopathologies of breast lesions in Brazilian women of the northeastern hinterland

Main Article Content

Érika Nicodemos Santana de Lucena
Debora Krutman Zveibil
Edimar Cristiano Pereira
Glaucia Luciano da Veiga
Beatriz da Costa Aguiar Alves
Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca
Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca

Keywords

breast neoplasms, image-guided biopsy, interventional ultrasonography, large-core needle biopsy, ultrasound BI-RADS

Abstract

Background and aim: Breast lesions have been diagnosed more frequently due to the improvement of imaging methods and, more recently, to the percutaneous biopsy technique. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the concordance rate between the ultrasound BI-RADS classification and the histopathological diagnosis of breast lesions.


Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 386 breast lesions submitted to ultrasound-guided core biopsy with a high-frequency linear transducer (7.5 MHz) using a Pro-Mag Ultra automatic pistol and a 14-gauge needle. The strength of the concordance between the percutaneous biopsy result and the ultrasound BI-RADS was measured by the PPV. The differences were considered significant if the p value was greater than 0.05


Results: Lesions ultrasonographically classified in categories 2, 3 and 4 are in accordance with the ultrasound BI-RADS 5th edition. However, 11 benign lesions were erroneously ultrasonographically classified as BI-RADS 5, which resulted in a malignancy of 88.3% while BI-RADS suggested that category 5 lesions had a malignancy ≥ 95%. It can be safely stated that there is a high suspicion for malignancy in lesions classified in category 5.


Conclusions: BI-RADS categories 2 and 3 should avoid unnecessary biopsies. As for the BI-RADS category 4, there is a need for systematic biopsies. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 6 |

References

1. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER). Available at: . Accessed on 02 february 2018.

2. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Estimativa 2010: incidência de câncer no Brasil, acesso 02 de fevereiro 2018. Available at: . Accessed on 02 february 2018.

3. Chala LF, Barros N. Avaliação das mamas com métodos de imagem. Radiologia Brasileira 2007; 40(1): 4-6.

4. Guiseppetti GM, Giuliani F, Baldassarre S, et al. Metodologia e semiologia. In: Veronesi U, editor. Mastologia oncológica. Rio de Janeiro: Medsi, 2002; 95–106.

5. Baker JA, Soo MS. Breast US: assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. Radiology 2002; 223(1): 229-238.

6. Parker SH, Stavros AT, Dennis MA. Needle biopsy techniques. Radiol Clin North Am. 1995; 33: 1171–1186.

7. Bassett LW, Kim CH. Breast imaging: mammography and ultrasonography. Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America 2001; 9(2): 251-271.

8. American College of Radiology. The ACR breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 2003. Available at: . Accessed on 02 february 2018.

9. Atlas BI-RADS® do ACR: sistema de laudos e registros de dados de imagem da mama/ American College of Radiology. 5 ed. São Paulo: Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia, 2016.

10. Melo ALKO, Barra MFC, Silva AV, et al. Estudo prospectivo de 100 casos de "core" biópsia dirigida por ultrassom e revisão da literatura. Radiol Bras 2003; 36(6): 339-344.

11. Barra AA, Gobbi H, Rezende CAL, et al. A comparison of aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy according to tumor size of suspicious breast lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2008; 36(1): 26-31.

12. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneouslarge-core breast biopsy: a multinstitutional study. Radiology 1994; 93(2): 359-364.

13. Martins EC, Soares A, Guimarães CM, et al. O uso da agulha de 16 G na core biopsy guiada por ultrassonografia em lesões mamárias. Rev Col Bras Cir 2009; 36(4): 312-315.

14. Barbalaco Neto G, Rossetti C, Fonseca FL, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ in core needle biopsies and its association with extensive in situ component in the surgical specimen. Int Arch Med. 2012; 5: 19-25.

15. Dillon MF, Hill ADK, Quinn CM, et al. The accuracy of ultrasound, stereotactic and clinical core biopsies in the diagnosis of breast cancer, with an analysis of false-negative cases. Ann Surg 2005; 242(5): 701-707.

16. Verkooijen HM, Core Biopsy After Radiological Localisation (COBRA) Study Group. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multicenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer 2002; 99(6): 853-859.

17. Roveda Jr D, Piato S, Oliveira VM, et al. Valores preditivos das categorias 3, 4 e 5 do sistema BIRADS em lesões mamárias nodulares não palpáveis avaliadas por mamografia, ultrassonografia e ressonância magnética. Radiol Bras. 2007; 40: 93–98.

18. Prado GL, Guerra MTPM. Valor preditivo positivo das categorias 3, 4 e 5 do Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®). Radiologia Brasileira 2010; 43(3): 171-174.

19., Giannotti IA, Giannotti Filho O, Scalzaretto AP, et al. Correlação entre diagnóstico por imagem e histologia de lesões não palpáveis de mama. Rev Bras Cancer 2003; 49: 87-90.

20. Ronchi S, Costa LD, Rerondi AR, et al. Prevalência de alterações mamárias em mulheres atendidas em um município do estado do Paraná. Revista Gaúcha de Enfermagem 2014; 35(2):
113-120.

21. Badan GM, Roveda Júnior D, Piato S, et al. Diagnostic underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ at percutaneous core needle and vacum-assisted biopsies of the breast in a Brazilian reference institution. Radiol Bra. 2016; 49: 6-11.

22. Hoorntje LE, Peeters PH, Mali WP, et al. Is stereotactic large-core needle biopsy beneficial prior to surgical treatment in BI-RADS 5 lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 86(2): 165-170.

23. Liberman L, Menell JH. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiologic Clinics 2002; 40(3): 409-430.

24. Godinho ER, Koch HA. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS™): como tem sido utilizado? Radiol Bras. 2004; 37: 413–417.