Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Mammography and Ultrasound in the Detection of Malignant Breast Lesions Using Bi-RADS Classification Taking Histopathology as the Gold Standard

Anum Sultan^1*, Syeda Zehra Rizvi², Dania Cioni³, Emanuele Neri^4
1Consultant Radiologist, Dr. Ziauddin hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
²Resident Radiology, Dr. Ziauddin hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
³Academic Radiology, University of Pisa, Italy.
⁴Chair Academic Radiology, University of Pisa, Italy.

Correspondence to: Anum Sultan, Consultant Radiologist, Dr. Ziauddin hospital, Karachi, Pakistan.
Received date: May 24, 2024; Accepted date: June 06, 2024; Published date: June 13, 2024
Citation: Sultan A, Rizvi SZ, Cioni D, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Combined Mammography and Ultrasound in the Detection of Malignant Breast Lesions Using Bi-RADS Classification Taking Histopathology as the Gold Standard. J Med Res Surg. 2024;5(3):55-62. doi: 10.52916/jmrs244137
Copyright: ©2024 Sultan A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Introduction: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women with an estimated 2.3 million new cases worldwide and a high mortality rate. The incidence of breast cancer has been increasing worldwide in the past few years with a similar trend of escalation in Pakistan. The age-standardized incidence rate of breast cancer in Pakistan is 104 per one million and the mortality rate is 65 per one million population. Limited studies have been done to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of combined mammography and ultrasound with BI-RADS scoring in the detection of breast cancer and positive predictive value of its morphological descriptors in Pakistan.
Objective: Our study aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of combined mammography and ultrasound in the detection of malignant breast lesions using BI-RADS classification taking histopathology as the gold standard and positive predictive value of its morphological descriptors.
Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. All the patients presented with breast-related symptoms and for screening in whom mammography with complimentary ultrasound was performed were included. Mammography protocol includes image acquisition in craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views. On ultrasound, all quadrants of the breast, retroaerolar region, and axilla were assessed. Patient stratification was done based on the age, clinical symptoms, and positive malignant lesions on histopathology; and frequency and percentage were calculated. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value (PPV), Negative Predictive Value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy was calculated. PPV of individual morphological descriptors were also calculated. The association of various morphological descriptors with malignancy was analyzed using a chi-square chart. p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: In 69 patients with suspicious imaging findings, 89.9% patients presented with breast lumps, 34.8% patients had pain, and 11.6% patients had nipple discharge. 8.7% had nipple retraction and 10.1% had skin changes. 52.2 % patients were post-menopausal and 46.1% patients were premenopausal. On histopathology, 88.4% patients had malignant disease and 11.5% were having benign lesions. The mean age of patients with malignant masses was 50.9 years+13.1 SD. No significant statical difference is noted between younger and older groups. The mean size of the malignant mass was 3.0 cm+1.8 SD. The sensitivity of combined mammogram and ultrasound was calculated to be 98.3%, specificity was 25.0%, PPV was 90.9%, NPV was 66.6% and diagnostic accuracy was 89.9%.
Conclusion: We conclude that the combined mammography and ultrasound serve as an important diagnostic tool, both for screening purpose as well as in patients with breast related symptoms for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Moreover, the morphological descriptors of malignancy on mammography and ultrasound as described by BI-RADS lexicon are reliable indicators of malignancy in patients with breast lesions.

Keywords:

Ultrasound, Mammography, BI-RADS classification, Breast cancer, Malignancy, Histopathology.

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249.
2. Mohapatra SK, Das PK, Nayak RB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography in characterizing breast masses using the 5th edition of BI-RADS: A retrospective study. Cancer Res Stat Treat. 2022;5(1):52-58.
3. Ghaemian N, Tehrani NH, Nabahati M. Accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography and their BI-RADS in detection of breast malignancy. Caspian J Intern Med. 2021;12(4):573.
4. Timmers JM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Zonderland HM, et al. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1717-1723.
5. Eberl MM, Fox CH, Edge SB, et al. BI-RADS classification for management of abnormal mammograms. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19(2):161-164.
6. Spak DA, Plaxco JS, Santiago L, et al. BI-RADS® fifth edition: A summary of changes. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017;98(3):179-190.
7. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Bassett LW, et al. The ACR BI-RADS® experience: learning from history. J Am Coll Radiol. 2009;6(12):851-860.
8. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Lo JY, et al. Breast cancer: prediction with artificial neural network based on BI-RADS standardized lexicon. Radiology. 1995;196(3):817-822.
9. Liberman L, Menell JH. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40(3):409-430.
10. Lee JM, Arao RF, Sprague BL, et al. Performance of screening ultrasonography as an adjunct to screening mammography in women across the spectrum of breast cancer risk. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(5):658-667.
11. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. Jama. 2012;307(13):1394-404.
12. Scheel JR, Lee JM, Sprague BL, et al. Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1):9-17.
13. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:227-336.
14. Madjar H. Role of breast ultrasound for the detection and differentiation of breast lesions. Breast Care. 2010;5(2):109-114.
15. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(5):1225-1228.
16. Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al. Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med. 2013;118(7):1119-1136.
17. Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, et al. MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg. 2009;75(10):970-975.
18. Eidemüller M, Holmberg E, Lundell M, et al. Evidence for increased susceptibility to breast cancer from exposure to ionizing radiation due to a familial history of breast cancer: results from the Swedish Hemangioma Cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(1):76-84.
19. Seiffert K, Thoene K, Zu Eulenburg C, et al. The effect of family history on screening procedures and prognosis in breast cancer patients-Results of a large population-based case-control study. Breast. 2021;55:98-104.
20. Surakasula A, Nagarjunapu GC, Raghavaiah KV. A comparative study of pre-and post-menopausal breast cancer: Risk factors, presentation, characteristics and management. J Res Pharm Pract. 2014;3(1):12.
21. Heer E, Harper A, Escandor N, et al. Global burden and trends in premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer: a population-based study. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(8):e1027-e1037.
22. Evans KK, Birdwell RL, Wolfe JM. If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PloS one. 2013;8(5):e64366.