Solid breast mass characterisation: Use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification

被引：97

作者：

Costantini M. ^{[1
]}

Belli P. ^{[1
]}

Ierardi C. ^{[1
]}

Franceschini G. ^{[1
]}

La Torre G. ^{[1
]}

Bonomo L. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Dipartimento di Bio-Immagini e Scienze Radiologiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma I-00168

来源：

La radiologia medica | 2007年 / 112卷 / 6期

关键词：

Breast; Diagnosis; Mass; Ultrasound;

D O I：

10.1007/s11547-007-0189-6

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Purpose. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of the sonographic Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification in differentiating benign from malignant breast masses. Materials and methods. A total of 292 female patients with breast masses undergoing biopsy between November 2004 and March 2006 in our department were included in this study. All lesions were classified according to the sonographic BI-RADS lexicon. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the sonographic BI-RADS lexicon and PPV and NPV for each lesion category and each sonographic descriptor were calculated. The χ2 test and the Fischer exact test were used to evaluate our results. Results. Univariate analysis showed a significant difference between malignant and benign groups with regard to morphology (p<0.001), horizontal-vertical diameter ratio<1 (p<0.002), orientation (p<0.001), noncircumscribed margins (p<0.001), echogenic halo (p<0.001), hypoechoic pattern (p=0.035), shadowing (p<0.001) and surrounding tissue alterations (p=0.001). The cumulative risk for malignancy was 64 and 10 times higher, respectively, in categories 5 and 4 than in category 3. Conclusions. The sonographic BI-RADS lexicon is an important system for describing and classifying breast lesions. © 2007 Springer-Verlag.

引用

页码：877 / 894

页数：17

共 28 条

[1]

American College of Radiology ACR Standards 2000-2001, (2000)

[2]

Baker J.A., Soo M.S., Breast US: Assessment of technical quality and image interpretation, Radiology, 223, pp. 229-238, (2002)

[3]

Jackson V., Reynolds H., Hawes D., Sonography of the breast, Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 17, pp. 460-475, (1996)

[4]

Baker J.A., Soo M.S., Rosen E.L., Artifacts and pitfalls in sonographic imaging of the breast, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 176, pp. 1261-1266, (2001)

[5]

Rizzatto G.J., Towards a more sophisticated use of breast ultrasound, Eur Radiol, 11, pp. 2425-2435, (2001)

[6]

Schroeder R.J., Bostanjoglo M., Rademaker J., Et al., Role of power Doppler technique and ultrasound contrast enhancement in the differential diagnosis of focal breast lesion, Eur Radiol, 13, pp. 68-79, (2003)

[7]

Benson S.R., Blue J., Judd K., Et al., Ultrasound is now better than mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer, Am J Surg, 188, pp. 381-385, (2004)

[8]

Flobbe K., Bosch A.M., Kessels A.G., Et al., The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer, Arch Intern Med, 63, pp. 1194-1199, (2003)

[9]

Rahbar G., Sie A.C., Hansen G.C., Et al., Benign versus Malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation, Radiology, 213, pp. 889-894, (1999)

[10]

Skaane P., Engedal K., Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 170, pp. 109-114, (1998)

← 1 2 3 →