Journals / Meme Sağlığı Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Meme lezyonlarında sonografik bı-rads sonuç kategorileri için pozitif öngörü değerleri

Positive predictive values of the sonographic bi-rads final assessment categories for breast lesions

Pages
125–129
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Although BI-RADS classification is useful for predicting malignancy for breast lesions found by ultrasound, more education is needed for precise understanding and usage by radiologists.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of sonographic Breast-Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment categories for nonpal- pable breast lesions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Between January 2008 and 2011, a total of 245 nonpal- pable breast lesions (223 patients) that had undergone excisional biopsy after ultrasound-guided wire needle localization in our clinic were evaluated retro- spectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Although BI-RADS classification is useful for predicting malignancy for breast lesions found by ultrasound, more education is needed for precise understanding and usage by radiologists.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of sonographic Breast-Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment categories for nonpal- pable breast lesions. Materials and Methods: Between January 2008 and 2011, a total of 245 nonpal- pable breast lesions (223 patients) that had undergone excisional biopsy after ultrasound-guided wire needle localization in our clinic were evaluated retro- spectively. Eight patients excluded from the study because we could not find the pathology results for them. Two hundred and thirty-seven lesions in 215 patients were included in the study. Lesion evaluation was done with a high resolution Logiq 7 USG device (General Electrics) by using a 10–14 MHz linear probe before ultrasound-guided wire needle localization. Static image records were evaluated by two expert radiologists on breast imaging without the knowledge of clinical information, mammographic images and pathologic results of the patients. The radiologists determined the most appropriate BI-RADS category for each lesion. The diagnostic performance of BI-RADS category was compared with the final pathology of the patient by using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: Of the237 lesions, 49 (20.6%) were malignant, 43 (18.1%) were high-risk atypical lesions and 145 (61.1%) were benign. Sensitivity and NPV were 100% for both radiologists, while specificity was 20.7% and 30.3%; PPV was 24.7% and 27.2%, respectively. When evaluation was done for BI-RADS subcategories; PPV for BI-RADS 4 was 15.6% and 22.8% (5.6% and 9.3% for 4; 17.6% and 24.3% for 4b; 40.6% and 66.7% for 4c); for BI-RADS 5 PPV was 66.7% and 84.6%. Conclusion: Although BI-RADS classification is useful for predicting malignancy for breast lesions found by ultrasound, more education is needed for precise understanding and usage by radiologists.

Özet

Amaç: Nonpalpable meme lezyonlarında, sonografik Breast Imaging Repor- ting and Data System (BI-RADS) sonuç kategorilerinin duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif öngörü değeri (PÖD) ve negatif öngörü değeri (NÖD)’ni hesaplamaktır. Yöntem ve Gereçler: Ocak 2008-Ocak 2011 tarihleri arasında kliniğimizde Ult- rasonografi (US) ile işaretleme sonrası eksizyonel biyopsi yapılan 223 hasta ve 245 nonpalpabl meme lezyonu retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. 8 hastanın patoloji sonucuna ulaşılamadığı için çalışma dışı bırakıldı. 215 hastada 237 lezyon çalışmaya dahil edildi. İşaretleme öncesinde lezyon değerlendirilmesi yüksek rezolusyonlu Logiq 7 (General Electric) US cihazı ile 10-14 MHz lineer prob kullanılarak yapıldı. İşaretleme öncesi alınan statik görüntüler, meme görüntüleme konusunda deneyimli iki uzman radyolog tarafından hastaların klinik bilgileri, mamografi görüntüleri ve patoloji sonuçları bilinmeden değer- lendirildi. Radyologlar değerlendirmelerinin sonunda her lezyon için en uy- gun BI-RADS kategorisini belirledi BI-RADS kategorisinin tanısal performansı duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif ve negatif öngörü değerleri ile doğruluk oranları hesaplanarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: İkiyüz otuz yedi lezyonun 49’u malign (%20,6), 43’ü yüksek riskli atipili lezyon (%18,1) ve 145’i benign (%61,1) idi. Sonografik BI-RADS için du- yarlılık ve NÖD her iki gözlemcinin değerlendirmesinde de %100 iken, özgüllük %20,7-%30,3 ve PÖD %24,7-%27,2 arasında değişmekteydi. BI-RADS alt grup- larına göre değerlendirme yapıldığında ise PÖD, BI-RADS 4 için %15,6-22,8, (4a için %5,6-9,3, 4b için %17,6-24,3, 4c için 40,6-66,7), BI-RADS 5 için %66,7- %84,6 saptandı. Sonuç: Ultrasonografide saptanan lezyonları BI-RADS kategorilerine göre sı- nıflandırmak, malign lezyonların öngörülmesinde oldukça yardımcıdır. Ancak BI-RADS sonografi terminolojisinin herkes tarafından daha net anlaşılması ve kullanılması için daha fazla eğitime ihtiyaç vardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ZENGİN, B., ELVERİCİ, E., BARCA, N., ÇAVUŞOĞLU, M., DURAN, S., ÖZSOY, A., AKTAŞ, H. (2013). Meme lezyonlarında sonografik bı-rads sonuç kategorileri için pozitif öngörü değerleri. Meme Sağlığı Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 125–129. https://ajindex.com/articles/278075

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005
  2. (PMID: 15761078) [CrossRef] 2. Sağlık Bakanlığı Kanserle Savaş Daire Başkanlığı 2005 Yılı Türkiye Kanser İstatistikleri. http://www.kanser.gov.tr/ 3. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010
  3. (PMID: 21351269) [CrossRef] 4. Costantini M, Belli P, Ierardi C, Franceschini G, La Torre G, Bonomo L. Solid breast mass characterisation: use of the sonographic BI-RADS classification. Radiol Med 2007
  4. (PMID: 17885742) [CrossRef] 5. Arger PH, Sehgal CM, Conant EF, Zuckerman J, Rowling SE, Patton JA. Interreader variability and predictive value of US descriptions of solid breast masses: pilot study. Acad Radiol 2001
  5. (PMID: 11293782) [CrossRef] 6. Levy L, Suissa M, Chiche JF, Teman G, Martin B. BIRADS ultrasonography. Eur J Radiol 2007
  6. (PMID: 17215097) [CrossRef] 7. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast ımaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assesment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998
  7. (PMID: 9648759) [CrossRef] 8. Bérubé M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Oliva D. Level of suspicion of a mammographic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy. Can Assoc Radiol J 1998
  8. (PMID: 9709675) 9. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999
  9. (PMID: 10580971) 10. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995
  10. (PMID: 7784555) 11. Harper AP, Kelly-Fry E, Noe JS, Bies JR, Jackson VP. Ultrasound in the evaluation of solid breast masses. Radiology 1983
  11. (PMID: 6298858) 12. Park CS, Lee JH, Yim HW, Kang BJ, Kim HS, Jung JI, et al. Observer agreement using the ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)-Ultrasound, first edition (2003). Korean J Radiol 2007
  12. (PMID: 17923782) 13. Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Youk JH, Lee JY, Kang DR, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. European Journal of R