Is there any Correlation between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features of Breast Lesions of BIRADS Category 4 with Histopathologic Results?

Farghadani, Maryam; Soofi, Ghazale Jamalipoor; Sarrami, Amir Hossein

Is there any Correlation between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features of Breast Lesions of BIRADS Category 4 with Histopathologic Results?

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of Radiology, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the correlation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of breast lesions of Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS) category 4 with histopathologic results. Materials and Methods: In a prospective study between December 2013 and April 2015, patients with suspicious mammographic and/or ultrasound findings referred for Breast MRI were evaluated. Patients with lesions of BI-RADS category 4 were enrolled with a written informed consent. In each patient, mass lesion (ML) or nonmass lesion (NML) was determined, and different characteristics of the lesions were recorded. A follow-up program was taken with mean 3–12 months. Patients who underwent core needle biopsy or open biopsy were summoned. Results: Seventy-eight females aged 24–67 years (mean 43.1 ± 8.8) met the inclusion criteria and had adequate samples for histopathologic study. Twenty-nine (37.2%) patients had ML and 49 (62.8%) patients had NML. Tissue sampling in 63 (80.7%) patients was through core needle biopsy and in 15 (19.2%) patients through surgery. A wide spectrum of benign and malignant pathologic diagnoses was seen. In statistical analysis, none of the MRI features has a significant correlation with any specific histopathologic diagnosis (P = 0.185). However, the relation between the MRI category (ML or NML) and pathology results was significant at level of 0.1 (P = 0.06). Conclusion: This study showed that a wide spectrum of histopathologic results is seen in BI-RADS category 4. However, in this sample volume, none of the MRI features in this BI-RADS category has a significant correlation with any specific histopathologic diagnosis.

Keywords

References

1.	Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220:13-30.
2.	Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF, Giuliano AE. MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg 2009;75:970-5.
3.	Dang CM, Zaghiyan K, Karlan SR, Phillips EH. Increased use of MRI for breast cancer surveillance and staging is not associated with increased rate of mastectomy. Am Surg 2009;75:937-40.
4.	Nouri-Neuville M, de Rocquancourt A, Cohen-Zarade S, Chapellier-Canaud M, Albiter M, Hamy AS, et al. Correlation between MRI and biopsies under second look ultrasound. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014;95:197-211.
5.	Abramovici G, Mainiero MB. Screening breast MR imaging: Comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies. Radiology 2011;259:85-91.
6.	Mahoney MC, Gatsonis C, Hanna L, DeMartini WB, Lehman C. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging. Radiology 2012;264:51-8.
7.	Lehman CD, Smith RA. The role of MRI in breast cancer screening. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009;7:1109-15.
8.	Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Kurland BF, Peacock S, Lehman CD. BI-RADS lesion characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast MRI for masses but not for nonmasslike enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:994-1000.
9.	Gity M, Ghazi Moghadam K, Jalali AH, Shakiba M. Association of different MRI BIRADS descriptors with malignancy in non mass-like breast lesions. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2014;16:e26040.
10.	American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting, Data System (BI-RADS). 5^th ed. Available on www.acr.org
11.	Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69-90.
12.	Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:11-30.
13.	Sirous M, Sirous R, Nejad FK, Rabeie E, Mansouri M. Evaluation of different aspects of power Doppler sonography in differentiating and prognostication of breast masses. J Res Med Sci 2015;20:133-9.
14.	Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D. Systematic review: Using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:671-9.
15.	Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:75-89.
16.	Sakamoto N, Tozaki M, Higa K, Tsunoda Y, Ogawa T, Abe S, et al. Categorization of non-mass-like breast lesions detected by MRI. Breast Cancer 2008;15:241-6.
17.	Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ, Kaplan JB, LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, et al. Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:171-8.
18.	Morakkabati-Spitz N, Leutner C, Schild H, Traeber F, Kuhl C. Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2005;15:2010-7.
19.	Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Fukuda K. Breast MRI using the VIBE sequence: Clustered ring enhancement in the differential diagnosis of lesions showing non-masslike enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:313-21.

Advanced Biomedical Research