The Negative Predictive Value of Electrical Impedance Scanning in BI-RADS Category IV Breast Lesions

Objectives:We sought to prospectively assess the value of electrical impedance scanning (EIS) in discriminating benign from malignant lesions classified as BI-RADS category IV in mammography in comparison with ultrasound (US), with a special focus on negative prediction. Materials and Methods:EIS was performed on 128 BI-RADS category IV lesions in 121 women (mean, 51.8 years). The newly developed EIS software 2.67 calculates a BI-RADS-like level of suspicion (LOS) on a 5-grade scale. LOS 1, 2, and 3 were considered negative; LOS 4 and 5 were considered positive. Histopathologic results were obtained in all lesions. Results:Histology proved 37 lesions malignant, 91 benign. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EIS compared with US were 94.6%, 74.7%, 80.5%, 60.3%, 97.1% versus 90.5%, 33.8%, 47.2%, 29.7%, 92.0%, respectively. In 43 lesions sized ≤10 mm, EIS demonstrated better sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 100%, 83.3%, 90.7%, 82.6%, and 100%, respectively. Although NPV was also high, US showed no sufficient results in 39 (30.5%) lesions because of microcalcifications. Receiver operating curve analysis revealed best results for a combined use of US and EIS. Conclusions:With a NPV of 97.1% of EIS in BI-RADS category IV breast lesions, a negative result in these lesions could be firm indication to manage them as BI-RADS-category III and refer patients for a 6-month short-interval follow-up rather than performing a biopsy. The best adjunctive diagnostic performance can be achieved by a combination of US and EIS. Costs and patient morbidity could be minimized.

[1]  J. Jossinet.  Variability of impedivity in normal and pathological breast tissue , 1996, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[2]  Ralph Sinkus,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Elastography of the Breast: Correlation of Signal Intensity Data With Viscoelastic Properties , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[3]  K. Bae,et al.  Evaluation of 1H-Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of Breast Cancer Pre- and Postgadolinium Administration , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[4]  T. Helbich,et al.  Characterization of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions With Computed Tomography Laser Mammography (CTLM): Initial Experience , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[5]  T. Nishikawa,et al.  Angiogenesis and Blood Vessel Invasion as Prognostic Indicators for Node-Negative Breast Cancer , 2001, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[6]  T. Helbich,et al.  Stereotactic and ultrasound-guided breast biopsy , 2004, European Radiology.

[7]  Joachim Böttcher,et al.  Influence of size and depth on accuracy of electrical impedance scanning , 2003, European Radiology.

[8]  A. Malich,et al.  Electrical impedance scanning in classifying suspicious breast lesions. , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[9]  C. Riedl,et al.  Elektrische Impedanzmessung in der Abklärung von Brustläsionen: Vergleich mit Mammographie, Sonographie und Histopathologie , 2002 .

[10]  Sarah Lenington,et al.  Novel EIS postprocessing algorithm for breast cancer diagnosis , 2002, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[11]  Claus D Claussen,et al.  Diagnostic Potential of Targeted Electrical Impedance Scanning in Classifying Suspicious Breast Lesions , 2002, Investigative radiology.

[12]  T. Helbich,et al.  [Electrical impedance scanning in the differentiation of suspicious breast lesions: comparison with mammography, ultrasound and histopathology]. , 2002, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[13]  R. Anderson,et al.  Additional value of electrical impedance scanning: experience of 240 histologically-proven breast lesions. , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[14]  R. Anderson,et al.  Differentiation of mammographically suspicious lesions: evaluation of breast ultrasound, MRI mammography and electrical impedance scanning as adjunctive technologies in breast cancer detection. , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[15]  E. Sickles.  Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[16]  R. Anderson,et al.  On Electrical Impedance Scanning - Principles and Simulations , 2000 .

[17]  H. Sittek,et al.  Electrical impedance measurement of the breast: effect of hormonal changes associated with the menstrual cycle , 2000, European Radiology.

[18]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. , 1999, Radiology.

[19]  W. Buchberger,et al.  Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  S. Orel,et al.  BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. , 1999, Radiology.

[21]  L. Liberman,et al.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  J. Elmore,et al.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  J Jossinet,et al.  The impedivity of freshly excised human breast tissue , 1998, Physiological measurement.

[24]  C. Claussen,et al.  Mammographie und Mammasonographie: In welcher Reihenfolge sollten die Untersuchungen erfolgen? , 1997 .

[25]  C. Claussen,et al.  [Mammography and mammary ultrasonography: which examination sequence is preferable?]. , 1997, RöFo. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren (Print).

[26]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

[27]  M. Morrow,et al.  Preoperative evaluation of abnormal mammographic findings to avoid unnecessary breast biopsies. , 1994, Archives of surgery.

[28]  E. Sickles.  Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. , 1994, Radiology.

[29]  W. Donegan.  Prognostic factors: Stage and receptor status in breast cancer , 2022 .

[30]  D. Cyrlak,et al.  Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. , 1988, Radiology.

[31]  F. Hall,et al.  Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. , 1988, Radiology.

[32]  Stuchly,et al.  Dielectric properties of breast carcinoma and the surrounding tissues , 1988, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[33]  S Ciatto,et al.  Nonpalpable lesions detected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cases. , 1987, Radiology.

[34]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[35]  H. Fricke,et al.  The Electric Capacity of Tumors of the Breast , 1926 .