Comparison of BIRADS lexicon to breast biopsy findings in low resource countries

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4798.2022.262145

Keywords:

Trucut Biopsy breast, BIRADS, CNB breast, mammography, histopathology breast biopsy, DCIS, atypical ductal hyperplasia, CEUS, FNAC breast, breast cancer

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide and early detection is of utmost importance. In developed countries, mandatory mammographic screening programs help in early detection, whereas, in developing countries cancer is often detected at an advanced stage. The BIRADS guidelines permit a standard approach and follow up for breast lesions. Many newer imaging modalities are being available for better diagnosis.

Breast lesions have a varied spectrum and the gold standard for diagnosis of breast cancer is based on histopathological examination of tissue. At times, even on trucut biopsy, it is difficult to categorize the lesion as the tissue studied is limited and some evolving lesions may have overlapping features. As there are limitations to both radiologic and pathologic approaches, the general and accepted way is to combine both modalities to arrive at a diagnosis.

The aim: The aim of the study was to find out how well the BIRADS radiological findings correlate with histopathological findings on breast biopsies.

Materials and methods: A MEDLINE search for articles published in English language, with key words as breast biopsy histopathology and BIRADS was done for the years between 1985 and 2021. In addition, other cross-referenced articles were also searched for relevant data.

Results: There is good correlation between BIRADS category 1, 2 and 5 with the findings on core needle biopsy in breast lumps i.e., good correlation is seen at the end of spectrum of breast lesions in totally benign and unequivocally malignant lesions. But this correlation is lacking in the middle of the spectrum i.e., in borderline/intermediate category of BIRADS.

Conclusion: The non-suspicious (BIRADS 1/ 2) and highly suspicious (BIRADS 4C/5) compare very well with the histopathologic findings. It is the grey zone i.e., BIRADS 3/4A which has a wide and variable predictive value for breast cancer when compared with histopathology and imaging study alone is insufficient and mandates histopathology in all such cases

Author Biographies

Shailaja Prabhala, All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Additional Professor

Department of Pathology and Lab Medicine

Annapurna Srirambhatla, All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Associate Professor

Department of Radiodiagnosis

Sujatha Pasula, Nilofer Hospital/ Osmania Medical College

Assistant Professor

Department of Biochemistry

References

  1. Helal, M., Abu Samra, M., Ibraheem, M. A., Salama, A., Hassan, E. E., Hassan, N. E.-H. (2017). Accuracy of CESM versus conventional mammography and ultrasound in evaluation of Breast imaging-reporting and data system BI-RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions with pathological correlation. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 48, 741–750. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrnm.2017.03.004
  2. Azamjah, N., Soltan-Zadeh, Y., Zayeri, F. (2019). Global Trend of Breast Cancer Mortality Rate: A 25-Year Study. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 20 (7), 2015–2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.31557/apjcp.2019.20.7.2015
  3. Bray, F., Ferlay, J., Soerjomataram, I., Siegel, R. L., Torre, L. A., Jemal, A. (2018). Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68, 394–424. doi: http://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
  4. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts &Figures 2019–2020. (2019). Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc.
  5. Kalaf, J. M. (2014). Mammography: a history of success and scientific enthusiasm. Radiologia Brasileira, 47 (4), VII–VIII. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2014.47.4e2
  6. Løberg, M., Lousdal, M. L., Bretthauer, M., Kalager, M. (2015). Benefits and harms of mammography screening. Breast Cancer Research, 17 (1). doi: http://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0525-z
  7. Yalavarthi, S., Tanikella, R., Prabhala, S., Tallam, U. S. (2014). Histopathological and cytological correlation of tumors of breast. Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil University, 7, 326–331. doi: http://doi.org/10.4103/0975-2870.128975
  8. Breen, N., Gentleman, J. F., Schiller, J. S. (2011). Update on mammography trends: comparisons of rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008. Cancer, 117, 2209–2218. doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25679
  9. Jochelson, M. (2012). Advanced imaging techniques for the detection of breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 65–69. doi: http://doi.org/10.14694/edbook_am.2012.32.223
  10. Chen, H. L., Zhou, Jq., C. Q,, Deng, Yc. (2021). Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer. Medicine, 100 (26), e26531. doi: http://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000026531
  11. Hodgson, R., Heywang-Köbrunner, .S. H., Harvey, S. C., Edwards, M., Shaikh, J., Arber, M. et. al. (2016). Systematic review of 3D mammography for breast cancer screening. Breast, 27, 52–61. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.01.002
  12. Salman, M. S., Dey, P. K., Das, P., Shuvro, R. A. (2016). Breast Cancer Detection and Classification Using Mammogram Images. Technical Report, 1–8.
  13. Monticcicolo, D. L., Newell, M. S., Hendrick, R. E., Helvie, M. A., Moy, L., Monsees, B. et. al. (2017). Breast Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Women: Recommendations From the ACR Commission on Breast Imaging. Journal of American College of radiology, 14 (9), 1137–1143. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.06.001
  14. Radhakrishna, S., Agarwal, S., Parikh, P. M., Kaur, K., Panwar, S., Sharma, S. et. al. (2018), Role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer management. South Asian Journal of Cancer, 7 (2), 69–71. doi: http://doi.org/10.4103/sajc.sajc_104_18
  15. Roganovic, D., Djilas, D., Vujnovic, S., Pavic, D., Stojanov, D. (2015). Breast MRI, digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis: comparison of three methods for early detection of breast cancer. Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences, 15 (4), 64–68. doi: http://doi.org/10.17305/bjbms.2015.616
  16. Gao, Y., Reig, B., Heacock, L., Bennett, D. L., Heller, S. L., Moy, L. (2021). Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer. Radiologic Clinics of North America, 59 (1), 85–98. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.004
  17. Li, L., Roth, R., Germaine, P., Ren, S., Lee, M., Hunter, K. et. al. (2017). Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): A retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, 98 (2), 113–123. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2016.08.013
  18. Luczyńska, E., Heinze-Paluchowska, S., Dyczek, S., Blecharz, P., Rys, J., Reinfuss, M. (2014). Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography: Comparison with Conventional Mammography and Histopathology in 152 Women. Korean Journal of Radiology, 15 (6), 689–696. doi: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.6.689
  19. Magny, S. J., Shikhman, R., Keppke, A. L. (2021). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Encyclopedia of Cancer, 426–426. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-47648-1_721
  20. BN, N., Thomas, S., Hiremath, R., Alva, S. R. (2017). Comparison Of Diagnostic Accuracy Of BIRADS Score With Pathologic Findings In Breast Lumps. Annals of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 4 (3), A236–A242. doi: http://doi.org/10.21276/apalm.1124
  21. Niknejad, M., Weerakkody, Y. (2010). Breast imaging-reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiopaedia.org. doi: http://doi.org/10.53347/rid-10003
  22. Pereira, R. de O., Luz, L. A. da, Chagas, D. C., Amorim, J. R., Nery-Júnior, E. de J., Alves, A. C. B. R. et. al. (2020). Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions. Clinics, 75, e1805. doi: http://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e1805
  23. Kuzmiak, C. M. (2018). Breast Imaging. London: IntechOpen, 142. doi: http://doi.org/10.5772/66022
  24. Thigpen, D., Kappler, A., Brem, R. (2018). The Role of Ultrasound in Screening Dense Breasts – A Review of the Literature and Practical Solutions for Implementation. Diagnostics, 8 (1), 20. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics8010020
  25. Singh, T., Khandelwal, N., Singla, V., Kumar, D., Gupta, M., Singh, G., Bal, A. (2017). Breast density in screening mammography in Indian population – Is it different from western population? The Breast Journal, 24 (3), 365–368. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12949
  26. Moy, L. (2020). BI-RADS Category 3 Is a Safe and Effective Alternative to Biopsy or Surgical Excision. Radiology, 296 (1), 42–43. doi: http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020201583
  27. Lee, K. A., Talati, N., Oudsema, R., Steinberger, S., Margolies, L. R. (2018). BI-RADS 3: Current and Future Use of Probably Benign. Current Radiology Reports, 6 (2). doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0266-8
  28. Berg, W. A., Berg, J. M., Sickles, E. A., Burnside, E. S., Zuley, M. L., Rosenberg, R. D., Lee, C. S. (2020). Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database. Radiology, 296, 32–41. doi: http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192641
  29. Jang, J. Y., Kim, S. M., Kim, J. H., Jang, M., La Yun, B., Lee, J. Y. et. al. (2017). Clinical significance of interval changes in breast lesions initially categorized as probably benign on breast ultrasound. Medicine, 96 (12), e6415. doi: http://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000006415
  30. Liu, G., Zhang, M. K., He, Y., Liu, Y., Li, X. R., Wang, Z. L. (2019). BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: could multi-mode ultrasound be helpful for their diagnosis? Gland Surgery, 8 (3), 258–270. doi: http://doi.org/10.21037/gs.2019.05.01
  31. I Chaitanya, N. V. L., Prabhala, S., Annapurna, S. et. al. (2020). Comparison of Histopathologic Findings with BIRADS Score in Trucut Biopsies of Breast Lesions. Indian Journal of Pathology: Research and Practice, 9 (1), 35–41.
  32. Elverci, E., Barca, A. N., Aktas, H. et. al. (2015). Non palpable BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: sonographic findings and pathology correlation. Diagnostic Intervention Radiology, 21, 189–194. doi : http://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2014.14103
  33. Sarangan, A., Geeta, R., Raj, S., Pushpa, B. (2017). Study of Histopathological Correlation of Breast Mass with Radiological and Cytological Findings. OSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences, 16 (3), 1–7. doi: http://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1603090107
  34. Tozbikian, G., Brogi, E., Vallejo, C. E., Giri, D., Murray, M., Catalano, J. et. al. (2017). Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Bordering on Ductal Carcinoma In Situ International Journal of Surgical Pathology, 25 (2), 100–107. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/1066896916662154
  35. Hartmann, L. C., Radisky, D. C., Frost, M. H., Santen, R. J., Vierkant, R. A., Benetti, L. L. (2014). Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: A longitudinal cohort study. Cancer Prevention Research, 7 (2), 211–217. doi: http://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.capr-13-0222
  36. Beegan, A. A., Offiah, G. (2018). High Risk Breast Lesions. Breast Imaging. doi: http://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.70616
  37. Sun, Y. S., Zhao, Z., Yang, Z. N., Xu, F., Lu, H. J., Zhu, Z. Y. (2017). Risk Factors and Preventions of Breast Cancer. International Journal of Biological Sciences, 13 (11), 1387–1397. doi: http://doi.org/10.7150/ijbs.21635

Downloads

Published

2022-07-29

How to Cite

Prabhala, S., Srirambhatla, A., & Pasula, S. (2022). Comparison of BIRADS lexicon to breast biopsy findings in low resource countries. ScienceRise: Medical Science, (4(49), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.15587/2519-4798.2022.262145

Issue

No. 4(49) (2022)

Section

Medical Science

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Shailaja Prabhala, Annapurna Srirambhatla, Sujatha Pasula

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Our journal abides by the Creative Commons CC BY copyright rights and permissions for open access journals.

Authors, who are published in this journal, agree to the following conditions:

1. The authors reserve the right to authorship of the work and pass the first publication right of this work to the journal under the terms of a Creative Commons CC BY, which allows others to freely distribute the published research with the obligatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.

 2. The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive work distribution in the form in which it has been published by the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.