Correlation between BI-RADS 4 and histopathological results in atypical breast lesions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10402949Keywords:
BI-RADS 4, atypical glandular lesion of the breast, ultrasoundAbstract
Introduction: atypical lesions of the mammary gland affect a total of 20,000 women worldwide. The BI-RADS 4 categorization is considered indefinite and has considerable variation to malignancy with up to five years of follow-up. Objective: to establish the correlation between BI-RADS 4 reports and histopathological findings in women with a diagnosis of atypical breast pathology who attend the Gynecology and Obstetrics consultation of the Hospital Provincial General Docente de Riobamba, Ecuador. Method: a correlational, retrospective, non-experimental, cross-sectional analytical study was carried out in the period January-December 2021, in 78 patients aged 20 to 70 years. The data were taken from the medical records. For the validity of the tests, Chi-square correlation statistical tests were used with 95% confidence intervals and an error rate of 5%. Results: the main risk factor observed was age ≥40 years (26.92%), followed by: breast deformity (20.51%), and recurrence of nodules (15.38%). In relation to the subcategories of the BI-RADS 4 report, it was observed that type C was the most prevalent with 39 cases (50%). Ductal hyperplasia predominated with 44.87% and was 95.83% with a specificity of 70%. There was an asymptomatic significance of 0.001 between BI-RADS 4 and histopathological results. Conclusions: lesions subcategorized as BI-RADS 4C are more likely to become malignant because they are mainly associated with ductal hyperplasia, this being the main breast cancer in women over 40 years of age.
Downloads
References
2. Danforth DN. Molecular profile of atypical hyperplasia of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat [Internet]. 2018 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 167(1):9-29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4488-x
3. Kanbayashi C, Iwata H. Current approach and future perspective for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Jpn J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 2017 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 47(8):671-677. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyx059
4. Yeong J, Thike AA, Tan PH, Iqbal J. Identifying progression predictors of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Pathol [Internet]. 2017 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 70(2):102-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2016-204154
5. Barrio AV, Van Zee KJ. Controversies in the Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. Annu Rev Med [Internet]. 2017 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 68:197-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-050715-104920
6. Shah C, Wobb J, Manyam B, Kundu N, Arthur D, Wazer D, Vicini F. Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: A Review. JAMA Oncol [Internet]. 2016 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 2(8):1083-1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0525
7. Scheifman D. BIRADS 5a edición. Ecografía. Rev Arg Mastol [Internet]. 2016 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 36(127):44-52. Disponible en: https://www.revistasamas.org.ar/revistas/2016_v36_n127/revista-SAMAS-127-44-52.pdf
8. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System (BI-RADS®) [Internet]. Buenos Aires: ACR; 2018. [citado 4 Nov 2023]. Disponible en: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Bi-Rads
9. Masroor I, Rasool M, Saeed SA, Sohail S. To asses inter- and intra-observer variability for breast density and BIRADS assessment categories in mammographic reporting. J Pak Med Assoc [Internet]. 2016 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 66(2):194-197. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26819167/
10. Okello J, Kisembo H, Bugeza S, Galukande M. Breast cancer detection using sonography in women with mammographically dense breasts. BMC Med Imaging [Internet]. 2014 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 14:41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12880-014-0041-0
11. Li YY, Liu C, Geng J, Li JG, Jin F, Wang XM. The differences of phyllodes and acoustic attenuation in breast lesions diagnosed with Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System for Ultrasonography (BI-RADS-US) category 4C. Eur J Gyn Oncol [Internet]. 2015 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 36(3):294-297. Disponible en: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26189256/
12. Elverici E, Barca AN, Aktas H, Ozsoy A, Zengin B, Cavusoglu M, Araz L. Nonpalpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Diagn Interv Radiol [Internet]. 2015 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 21(3): 189-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2014.14103
13. Co M, Kwong A, Shek T. Factors affecting the under-diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsies – A 10-year retrospective study and review of the literature. Int J Sur [Internet]. 2018 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 49:27-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.11.005
14. Faguy K. Breast Sonography and Mammography: Complementarity and Correlation. Radiol Technol [Internet]. 2017 sep [citado 4 Nov 2023].; 89(1):45m-64m. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28904171/
15. Punglia RS, Bifolck K, Golshan M, Lehman C, Collins L, Polyak K, King TA. Epidemiology, Biology, Treatment, and Prevention of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS). JNCI Cancer Spectr [Internet]. 2018 [citado 4 Nov 2023]; 2(4):pky063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pky063
