Şüpheli Meme Lezyonlarında BI-RADS Sınıflamasının Tanısal Etkinliği: Batı Anadolu’da Tek Merkezli Deneyim

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, meme ultrasonografisi (US) ve mamografi ile BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) 3, 4 ve 5 olarak gruplandırılan ve US eşliğinde tru-cut biyopsi (TCB) yapılan lezyonlardaki histopatolojik ve radyolojik uyumluluğun araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ocak 2019-Aralık 2022 tarihleri arasında US ve mamografi ile BI-RADS 3, 4 ve 5 meme lezyonu saptanan ve US eşliğinde TCB yapılan ardışık 196 kadın hasta retrospektif olarak taranarak çalışmaya dahil edildi. Lezyon lokalizasyonları, en büyük çapları, biyopsi sonuçları ve benign-malign lezyonların yaşla ilişkisi incelendi. BI-RADS 3 lezyonlarında malignite için negatif prediktif değer (NPD), BI-RADS 4 ve 5 lezyonlarında malignite için pozitif prediktif değer (PPD) hesaplandı. Bulgular: Yaş ortalaması 50.38±13.53 (18-80) olan hastalarda 52 yaş üzerinde malignite olasılığı artmaktadır. Benign ve malign lezyonların büyüklükleri ve lokalizasyonları arasında istatistiksel olarak fark izlenmedi (p>0.05). BI-RADS ile histopatolojik tanı arasında istatistiksel olarak güçlü ve anlamlı bir korelasyon vardı (p<0.0001, r=0.725). BI-RADS 3 lezyonlarda malignite için NPD %93.5 ve BI-RADS 4 ve 5 lezyonlarında malignite için PPD sırasıyla %61.4 ve %96.7 bulundu. Sonuç: TCB, BI-RADS 3, 4 ve 5 olarak gruplandırılan lezyonların tanısı için etkili ve güvenilir bir yöntemdir. BI-RADS 3 lezyonlarda malignite için NPD nispeten düşüktür. BI-RADS 4 lezyonlarda, lezyon spektrumunun genişliği ve alt kategorilere ayırmadaki subjektif kriterler nedeni ile malignite için PPD düşüktür. BI-RADS 5 lezyonlarda ise malignite için PPD oldukça yüksektir.

Keywords

• Meme kitlesi
• BI-RADS
• Meme tru-cut biyopsi

Diagnostic Effectiveness of BI-RADS Classifıcation In Suspected Breast Lesions: A Single Center Experience in the West Anatolia

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we aimed to investigate the histopathological and radiological compatibility of the lesions grouped as BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) categories 3, 4, and 5 with breast ultrasonography (US) and mammography and performed trucut biopsy (TCB) under US guidance. Material and methods: Between January 2019 and December 2022, 196 consecutive female patients who were diagnosed with BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions by US and mammography examinations and underwent US-guided TCB were retrospectively scanned and included in the study. Lesion localizations, largest diameters, biopsy results, and the relationship of benign-malignant lesions with age were examined. Negative predictive value (NPV) for malignancy in BI-RADS 3 lesions and positive predictive value (PPV) for malignancy in BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions were calculated. Results: In patients with a mean age of 50.38±13.53 (18-80), the probability of malignancy increased over the age of 52. There was no statistical difference between the sizes and locations of benign and malignant lesions (p>0.05). There was a statistically strong and significant correlation between BIRADS and histopathological diagnosis (p<0.0001, r=0.725). The NPV for malignancy in BI-RADS 3 lesions was 93.5%, and the PPV for malignancy in BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions was 61.4% and 96.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Breast trucut biopsy is an effective and reliable method for diagnosing lesions grouped as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5. The NPV rate for malignancy in BI-RADS 3 lesions is relatively low. In BI-RADS 4 lesions, the PPV for malignancy is low because the lesion spectrum is quite wide, and the division into subcategories is subjective. The PPV for malignancy in BI-RADS 5 lesions is quite high.

Keywords

• Breast mass
• BI-RADS
• Breast tru-cut biopsy

References

1. 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F: Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71:209-49.
2. 2) Radhakrishna S, Gayathri A, Chegu D. Needle core biopsy for breast lesions: An audit of 467 needle core biopsies. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2013; 34:252-56.
3. 3) Yalavarthi S. Tanikella R, Prabhala S, Tallam US. Histopathological and cytological correlation of tumors of breast. Medical Journa lof Dr. D. Y. Patil University 2014; 7:326–31.
4. 4) Menezes GL, Knuttel FM, Stehouwer BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MA. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: A literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol 2014; 5:61-70.
5. 5) Moy L. BI-RADS Category 3 Is a Safe and Effective Alternative to Biopsy or Surgical Excision. Radiology 2020; 296:42–3.
6. 6) Sickles E, D’Orsi C, Bassett LW. ACR BI-RADS Atlas Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2013.
7. 7) Smallenburg V V B, Nederend J, Voogd A C, Coebergh J W, van Beek M, Jansen F H, Louwman W J, Duijm L E M. Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. British Journal of Cancer 2013; 109:242-48.
8. 8) Hatmaker AR, Donahue RMJ, Tarpley JL, Pearson AS. Cost-effective use of breast biopsy techniques in a veterans healthcare system. The American Journal of Surgery 2006; 192:37-41.

9. 9) Doğan E. Complications in Ultrasound-Assisted Breast Trucut Biopsy and Comparison with Other Biopsy Methods. Medical Journal of Mugla Sitki Kocman University 2018; 5:13-16.
10. 10) Verkooijen H M, Peeters P H, Buskens E, Koot V C, Borel Rinkes I, Mali W P, van Vroonhoven T J. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2000; 82:1017-21.
11. 11) Bassett L W, Mahoney M C, Apple S K. Interventional breast imaging: current procedures and assessing for concordance with pathology. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:881-94.
12. 12) Bildirici T, Özdemir A, Dursun A, Gürel K, Önal B, Altınok M, Işık S. Meme lezyonlarında US kılavuzluğunda vakum destekli biyopsi (mammotom) uygulamaları: 24 lezyonu içeren ilk sonuçlar. Tanısal ve Girişimsel Radyoloji 2001; 7:376-79.
13. 13) Fornage B D. Sonographically guided needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 1999; 27:385-89.
14. 14) Nath M, Robinson T, Tobon H, Chough D M, Sumkin J H. Automated large-core needle biopsy of surgically removed breast lesions: comparison of samples obtained with 14-, 16, and 18-gauge needles. Radiology 1995; 197:739-42.
15. 15. Chaitanya, INVL, Prabhala, S, Annapurna S, Deshpande A K. Comparison of Histopathologic Findings with BIRADS Score in Trucut Biopsies of Breast Lesions. Indian Journal of Pathology: Research and Practice 2020; 9:35-41.
16. 16) Elverci E, Barça A N, Aktaş H, Özsoy A, Zengin B, Çavuşoğlu M, Araz L. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breastlesions: sonographic Findings and pathology correlation. Diagnostic Intervention Radiology 2015; 21:189–94.
17. 17) Sarangan A, Geeta R, Raj S, Pushpa B. Study of Histopathological Correlation of Breast Mass with Radiological and Cytological Findings. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2017; 16:1–7.
18. 18) Kim M J, Kim D, Jung W H, Koo J S. Histological analysis of benign breast imaging reporting and data system categories 4c and 5 breast lesions in imaging study. Yonsei Med j 2012; 53:1203-10.
19. 19) Arsalan F, Subhan A, Rasul S, Jalalı U, Yousuf M, Mehmood Z, Khan A. Sensitivity and specificity of BI-RADS scoring system in carcinoma of breast. Journal of surgery Pakistan 2010; 15(1):38-43.
20. 20) Jung H K, Moon H J, Kim M J, Kim E K. Benign core biopsy of probably benign breast lesions 2 cm or larger: Correlation with excisional biopsy and long-term follow-up. Ultrasonography 2014; 33(3):200-05.
21. 21) Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Canavese G, Cataliotti L, Corcione S, Cossu E, Federico M, Marotti L, Martincich L, Panizza P, Podo F, Del Turco M R, Zuiani C, Alfano C, Bazzocchi M, Belli P, Bianchi S, Cilotti A, Calabrese M, Carbonaro L, Cortesi L, Di Maggio C, Del Maschio A, Esseridou A, Fausto A, Gennaro M, Girometti R, Lenzi R, Luini A, Manoukian S, Morassutt S, Morrone D, Nori J, Orlacchio A, Pane F, Panzarola P, Ponzone R, Simonetti G, Torricelli P, Valeri G. Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Consensus document “Attualita in senologia”, Florence 2007. Radiol Med 2008; 113: 1085-95.
22. 22) Ko K H, Jung H K, Kim S J, Kim H, Yoon J H. Potential role of shear-wave ultrasound elastography for the differential diagnosis of breastnon-mass lesions: preliminary report. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 305-11.
23. 23) Agrawal S, Anthony M L, Paul P, Singh D, Agarwal A, Mehan A, Singh A, Joshi P P, Kumar A, Syed A, Ravi B, Rao S, Chowdhury N. Accuracy of Breast Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Using the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System in Clinico- Radiologically Indeterminate Lesions: Initial Findings Demonstrating Value in Lesions of Low Suspicion of Malignancy. Acta Cytol 2021; 65: 220-6.
24. 24) Tornero JC, Gómez M, Fabregat CG, Font L A, Escolar V R, Cañete BE, Cebollada AG. Complications after regional anesthesia. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2008; 55:552-62.
25. 25) Yeniçeri Ö, Özcan Ö, Çullu N, Deveer M. The Benefit of Tru-Cut Biopsy in Breast Masses. J Harran Uni Med Faculty 2015; 12:73-7.
26. 26) Fonseca R J. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 2000; 433-34.
27. 27) Catani J H, Matsumoto R, Horigome F, Tucunduva T, Costenaro M, Barros N. A pictorial review of breast biopsy complications. ECR 2017; C-2054;1-12.