Predictive value of BI-RADS classification for breast imaging in women under age 50

6Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In this study, we assessed the positive-predictive value (PPV) of mammography and/or ultrasonography in women age 50 based on recommendations for biopsies and final pathology results. We performed a retrospective analysis of all mammography and ultrasonography reports issued from 9/2005 to 1/2007 resulting in biopsy among women aged 18-50 at a large county hospital. Data included demographics, imaging modality, breast density, type of finding, BI-RADS, and final pathology. Results were compared to women aged >50 at the same institution. Four hundred and seventy-five biopsies in 395 patients were reviewed. The PPV of BI-RADS 3 (n = 11) was 9.1%, BI-RADS 4 (n = 440) 5.9%, and BI-RADS 5 (n = 24) 66.7%. Forty three (9%) were malignant, of which 31 (6.5%) were invasive carcinomas and 12 (2.5%) were noninvasive. None of the biopsies on patients aged <30 were malignant. Recommended biopsies based on mammography alone were malignant in 20.2% (20/99) compared to 3.4% (7/205) for ultrasonography alone, and 8.9% (15/168) for both mammography and ultrasonography. Suspicious calcifications were malignant in 25% compared to 6.8% for masses/nodules and 3.6% for cysts. Lesions larger than 2 cm are more likely to be malignant (11.8%) than lesions between 1 and 2 cm (3.6%) or below 1 cm (4.3%). The PPV of the current screening modalities diminishes markedly in women under the age of 50 and even more below the age of 40. Calcifications and masses larger than 2 cm should be biopsied, but the current BI-RADS criteria may benefit from revision for other findings in young patients. © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kennedy, G., Markert, M., Alexander, J. R., & Avisar, E. (2011). Predictive value of BI-RADS classification for breast imaging in women under age 50. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 130(3), 819–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1669-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free