Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy.

PURPOSE To retrospectively evaluate whether microcalcification descriptors and the categorization of microcalcification descriptors in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4th edition help stratify the risk of malignancy, by using biopsy and clinical follow-up as reference standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant study and waived informed consent. The study included 115 women (age range, 26-82 years; mean age, 55.8 years +/- 10.5 [standard deviation]) who consecutively underwent image-guided biopsy of microcalcifications between November 2001 and October 2002. Screening and diagnostic mammograms (including magnification views) obtained before biopsy were analyzed in a blinded manner by a subspecialty-trained breast imager who recorded BI-RADS descriptors on a checklist. The proportion of malignant cases was used as the outcome variable to evaluate the ability of the descriptors to help capture the risk of malignancy. Fisher exact test was used to calculate the difference among the individual descriptors and descriptor categories. RESULTS The positive predictive value of biopsy for malignancy was 21.7%. Each calcification morphologic descriptor was able to help stratify the probability of malignancy as follows: coarse heterogeneous, one (7%) of 14; amorphous, four (13%) of 30; fine pleomorphic, 10 (29%) of 34; and fine linear, 10 (53%) of 19. Fisher exact test results revealed a significant difference among these descriptor categories (P = .005). Significant differences among the risks suggested by microcalcification distribution descriptors (P = .004) and between that of stability descriptors (P = .001) were found. CONCLUSION The microcalcification descriptors and categories in BI-RADS 4th edition help predict the risk of malignancy for suspicious microcalcifications.

[1]  H. Bingham,et al.  The predictive value of certain mammographic signs in screening for breast cancer , 1984 .

[2]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  J C de Waal Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions. , 1991, Radiology.

[4]  A. Lev-Toaff,et al.  Stability of malignant breast microcalcifications. , 1994, Radiology.

[5]  Mythreyi Bhargavan,et al.  Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. , 2001, Radiology.

[6]  J A Swets,et al.  Enhancing and Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy , 1991, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  B. J. Hillman Informed and shared decision making: an alternative to the debate over unproven screening tests. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

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

[11]  C. Floyd,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  E. Chan Promoting an ethical approach to unproven screening imaging tests. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

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