Title: Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions Based on Ultrasound Criteria
Authors: Usha Kumari K, Sophy Susan Manuel
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i5.19
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of ultrasound imaging for distinguishing between benign and malignant breast masses, with FNAC or biopsy results as reference standard in a study population based in South India.
Materials and Methods: The records of breast ultrasound examination findings of 50 patients with solid breast masses were retrospectively reviewed. Criteria such as size, shape of the lesion, circumscribed or irregularity of margins such as indistinct, angular, microlobulate or spiculated, posterior enhancement or shadowing, calcifications, echo pattern, associated features mainly duct changes and W/AP ratio were evaluated and a diagnosis reached based on ultrasound criteria. Gold standard was kept as FNAC or biopsy.
Results: The sensitivity of breast US for malignancy was 96%, specificity 85%, positive predictive value 94%, negative predictive value 92% and accuracy 93%, Among the benign criteria marked hyperechogenicity and ellipsoid shape had 100% negative predictive value. Negative predictive value of 3 or fewer gentle lobulations and thin echogenic capsule was 87.5% each. 75% of fibroadenomas showed W/AP ratio >1.4 and 93% of malignant lesions showed W/AP ratio <1.4 (p value <.001 statistically significant).
Conclusion: The data confirm that using strict sonographic criteria it is possible differentiate benign from malignant lesions with confidence. Furthermore, applying these criteria can obviate need for biopsy in a group of benign solid breast lesions.
Keywords: Breast carcinoma, breast neoplasms, sonography, positive predictive value, negative predictive value.
References
1. Rubin E,Miller VE,Berland LL,Han SY,Koehler RE,Stanley RJ.Hand-held real-time breast sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol.1985 Mar;144(3):623-7.
2. StavrosAT, ThickmanD, RappCL, DennisMA, ParkerSH, SisneyGA.Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions.Radiology1995;196(1):123–134.
3. Mainiero MB, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, Livingston L, Koelliker SL, Schepps B, Mayo-Smith WW. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred?J Ultrasound Med2005;24(2):161–167.
4. GrafO, HelbichTH, HopfG, GrafC, Sickles EA.Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?Radiology2007;244(1):87–93.
5. MendelsonEB, BaumJK, BergWA, MerrittCR, RubinE.Breast Imaging Reporting Data System.BI-RADS: Ultrasound. Reston, Va:American College of Radiology,2003.
6. Loving VA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: outcomes analyses and management implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(6):1472–147
7. Stavros AT. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2004 google books p286
8. Hilton SV, Leopold GR, Olson LK, Willson SA. Realtime breast sonography: application in 300 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;147(3): 479–486
9. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, Jackson VP, Sayre JW, Bassett LW. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999; 213: 889–894.
10. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BIRADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management followup and outcome. Radiology 2008;248(3):773–81
11. Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Lorusso AP, Cohen MA, Bovbjerg VE. Shorttermfollowup of palpable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(6): 1723–1730.
12. HongAS, RosenEL, SooMS, BakerJA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.AJR Am J Roentgenol2005 ;184(4):1260–1265.
13. American College of Radiology, BI-RADS Committee. ACR BI-RADS Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System: Breast Imaging Atlas. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
14. Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, ElKhoury M, Kao E. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology 2009;252(3):665–672
15. Adrada B, Wu Y, Yang W. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: radiologic histopathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:W518–W530.
16. Linda A, Zuiani C, Lorenzon M, Furlan A, Girometti R, Londero V, Bazzocchi M. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: not always benign.AJR Am J Roentgenol2011;196(5):1219–1224
17. SoonPS, VallentineJ, PalmerA, Magarey CJ, SchwartzP, MorrisDL.Echogenicity of breast cancer: is it of prognostic value?Breast2004;13(3):194–199.