Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables.

PURPOSE To evaluate the risk of cancer (positive predictive value [PPV]) associated with specific findings (mass, calcifications, architectural distortion, asymmetry) in mammographic examinations with abnormal results, to determine the distribution of these findings in examinations in which the patients received a diagnosis of cancer and examinations in which the patients did not, and to analyze PPV variation according to radiologist and patient factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS HIPAA-compliant institutional review board approval was obtained. PPV of mammographic findings was evaluated in a prospective cohort of 10,262 women who underwent 10,641 screening or diagnostic mammographic examinations with abnormal results between January 1998 and December 2002 in the San Francisco Mammography Registry. The cohort was linked with the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program to determine cancer status among these women. PPVs were calculated for each finding and were stratified according to patient characteristics, cancer type, and radiologist reader. RESULTS Cases of breast cancer (n = 1552) were identified (invasive, n = 1287; ductal carcinoma in situ, n = 270); in five, both kinds of breast cancer were recorded. Overall, of the number of interpretations, masses were most frequently noted in 56%, followed by calcifications in 29%, asymmetry in 12%, and architectural distortion in 4%. Masses, calcifications, architectural distortion, and developing asymmetry demonstrated similar PPVs in screening examinations (9.7%, 12.7%, 10.2%, and 7.4%, respectively), whereas one-view-only and focal asymmetry demonstrated lower PPVs (3.6% and 3.7%, respectively) and were a frequent reason for an abnormal result (42%). Overall, one (5%) in 20 invasive cancers was identified with asymmetry, one (6%) in 16 invasive cancers was identified with architectural distortion, one (21%) in five invasive cancers was identified with calcifications, and two (68%) in three invasive cancers were identified with a mass. CONCLUSION Five percent of invasive cancers were identified with asymmetry, and asymmetry is more weakly associated with cancer in screening examinations than are mass, calcifications, and architectural distortion.

[1]  M Moskowitz,et al.  The predictive value of certain mammographic signs in screening for breast cancer , 1983, Cancer.

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

[3]  G Hermann,et al.  Occult malignant breast lesions in 114 patients: relationship to age and the presence of microcalcifications. , 1988, Radiology.

[4]  A prospective study of 8413 asymptomatic women undergoing mammography. , 1990, Canadian Association of Radiologists journal = Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes.

[5]  M A Helvie,et al.  Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. , 1991, Radiology.

[6]  J. Crowe,et al.  Not all nonpalpable breast cancers are alike. , 1991, Archives of surgery.

[7]  E. Sickles.  Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. , 1991, Radiology.

[8]  The impact of mammography on breast biopsy. , 1992, The American surgeon.

[9]  D. Kopans.  The positive predictive value of mammography. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  X. Varas,et al.  Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[11]  J. J. Gisvold,et al.  Likelihood of malignant disease for various categories of mammographically detected, nonpalpable breast lesions. , 1993, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[12]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Non-palpable lesions of the breast detected by mammography--review of 1182 consecutive histologically confirmed cases. , 1994, European journal of cancer.

[13]  S. Rubin,et al.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. , 1995, JAMA.

[14]  I. Ellis,et al.  The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions. , 1996, Clinical radiology.

[15]  E. Sickles.  Findings at mammographic screening on only one standard projection: outcomes analysis. , 1998, Radiology.

[16]  A. Agresti,et al.  Approximate is Better than “Exact” for Interval Estimation of Binomial Proportions , 1998 .

[17]  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.

[18]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests. , 1999, JAMA.

[19]  D. Salas,et al.  Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. , 2001, Radiology.

[20]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[21]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  X. Varas,et al.  Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  Joseph Geradts,et al.  Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[24]  Yah-Yuen Tan,et al.  Positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization in an Asian population. , 2004, Asian journal of surgery.

[25]  D. Berry,et al.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening , 2006 .

[28]  E. Sickles,et al.  Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  E. Sickles.  The spectrum of breast asymmetries: imaging features, work-up, management. , 2007, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[30]  D. Vanel.  The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? , 2007, European journal of radiology.