Can Radiologists Predict the Presence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Invasive Breast Cancer?

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that radiologists' estimated percentage likelihood assessments for the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive cancer may predict histologic outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty cases categorized as BI-RADS category 4 or 5 at four University of California Medical Centers were retrospectively reviewed by 10 academic radiologists with a range of 1-39 years in practice. Readers assigned BI-RADS category (1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, or 5), estimated percentage likelihood of DCIS or invasive cancer (0-100%), and confidence rating (1 = low, 5 = high) after reviewing screening and diagnostic mammograms and ultrasound images. ROC curves were generated. RESULTS: Sixty-two percent (156/250) of lesions were benign and 38% (94/250) were malignant. There were 26 (10%) DCIS, 20 (8%) invasive cancers, and 48 (19%) cases of DCIS and invasive cancer. AUC values were 0.830-0.907 for invasive cancer and 0.731-0.837 for DCIS alone. Sensitivity of 82% (56/68), specificity of 84% (153/182), positive predictive value (PPV) of 66% (56/85), negative predictive value (NPV) of 93% (153/165), and accuracy of 84% ([56 + 153]/250) were calculated using an estimated percentage likelihood of 20% or higher as the prediction threshold for invasive cancer for the radiologist with the highest AUC (0.907; 95% CI, 0.864-0.951). Every 20% increase in the estimated percentage likelihood of invasive cancer increased the odds of invasive cancer by approximately two times (odds ratio, 2.4). For DCIS, using a threshold of 40% or higher, sensitivity of 81% (21/26), specificity of 79% (178/224), PPV of 31% (21/67), NPV of 97% (178/183), and accuracy of 80% ([21 + 178]/250) were calculated. Similarly, these values were calculated at thresholds of 2% or higher (BI-RADS category 4) and 95% or higher (BI-RADS category 5) to predict the presence of malignancy. CONCLUSION: Using likelihood estimates, radiologists may predict the presence of invasive cancer with fairly high accuracy. Radiologist-assigned estimated percentage likelihood can predict the presence of DCIS, albeit with lower accuracy than that for invasive cancer.

Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to determine the inter-observer agreement among academic breast radiologists when using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lesion descriptors for suspicious findings on diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten experienced academic breast radiologists across five medical centers independently reviewed 250 de-identified diagnostic mammographic cases that were previously assessed as BI-RADS 4 or 5 with subsequent pathologic diagnosis by percutaneous or surgical biopsy. Each radiologist assessed the presence of the following suspicious mammographic findings: mass, asymmetry (one view), focal asymmetry (two views), architectural distortion, and calcifications. For any identified calcifications, the radiologist also described the morphology and distribution. Inter-observer agreement was determined with Fleiss kappa statistic. Agreement was also calculated by years of experience. RESULTS: Of the 250 lesions, 156 (62%) were benign and 94 (38%) were malignant. Agreement among the 10 readers was strongest for recognizing the presence of calcifications (k = 0.82). There was substantial agreement among the readers for the identification of a mass (k = 0.67), whereas agreement was fair for the presence of a focal asymmetry (k = 0.21) or architectural distortion (k = 0.28). Agreement for asymmetries (one view) was slight (k = 0.09). Among the categories of calcification morphology and distribution, reader agreement was moderate (k = 0.51 and k = 0.60, respectively). Readers with more experience (10 or more years in clinical practice) did not demonstrate higher levels of agreement compared to those with less experience. CONCLUSIONS: Strength of agreement varies widely for different types of mammographic findings, even among dedicated academic breast radiologists. More subtle findings such as asymmetries and architectural distortion demonstrated the weakest agreement. Studies that seek to evaluate the predictive value of certain mammographic features for malignancy should take into consideration the inherent interpretive variability for these findings.

Breast magnetic resonance imaging for monitoring response to therapy.

There is no difference in disease-free or overall survival in patients who undergo adjuvant versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is recommended in patients with locally advanced breast cancer who would like to consider breast conservation, and is also the primary treatment in patients with inflammatory breast cancer. Magnetic resonance has emerged as the most sensitive imaging modality to assess the response of tumor to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.