Positive Predictive Value of Specific Mammographic Findings according to Reader and Patient Variables
- 1 March 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) in Radiology
- Vol. 250 (3) , 648-657
- https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2503080541
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the risk of cancer (positive predictive value [PPV]) associated with specific findings (mass, calcifications, architectural distortion, asymmetry) in mammographic examinations with abnormal results, to determine the distribution of these findings in examinations in which the patients received a diagnosis of cancer and examinations in which the patients did not, and to analyze PPV variation according to radiologist and patient factors. Materials and Methods: HIPAA-compliant institutional review board approval was obtained. PPV of mammographic findings was evaluated in a prospective cohort of 10 262 women who underwent 10 641 screening or diagnostic mammographic examinations with abnormal results between January 1998 and December 2002 in the San Francisco Mammography Registry. The cohort was linked with the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program to determine cancer status among these women. PPVs were calculated for each finding and were stratified according to patient characteristics, cancer type, and radiologist reader. Results: Cases of breast cancer (n = 1552) were identified (invasive, n = 1287; ductal carcinoma in situ, n = 270); in five, both kinds of breast cancer were recorded. Overall, of the number of interpretations, masses were most frequently noted in 56%, followed by calcifications in 29%, asymmetry in 12%, and architectural distortion in 4%. Masses, calcifications, architectural distortion, and developing asymmetry demonstrated similar PPVs in screening examinations (9.7%, 12.7%, 10.2%, and 7.4%, respectively), whereas one-view-only and focal asymmetry demonstrated lower PPVs (3.6% and 3.7%, respectively) and were a frequent reason for an abnormal result (42%). Overall, one (5%) in 20 invasive cancers was identified with asymmetry, one (6%) in 16 invasive cancers was identified with architectural distortion, one (21%) in five invasive cancers was identified with calcifications, and two (68%) in three invasive cancers were identified with a mass. Conclusion: Five percent of invasive cancers were identified with asymmetry, and asymmetry is more weakly associated with cancer in screening examinations than are mass, calcifications, and architectural distortion. (c) RSNA, 2009This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Spectrum of Breast Asymmetries: Imaging Features, Work-Up, ManagementRadiologic Clinics of North America, 2007
- Developing Asymmetry Identified on Mammography: Correlation with Imaging Outcome and Pathologic FindingsAmerican Journal of Roentgenology, 2007
- Effect of Screening and Adjuvant Therapy on Mortality from Breast CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer ScreeningNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Positive Predictive Value of BI-RADS Categorization in an Asian PopulationAsian Journal of Surgery, 2004
- Approximate is Better than “Exact” for Interval Estimation of Binomial ProportionsThe American Statistician, 1998
- The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: A review of 425 non-palpable breast lesionsClinical Radiology, 1996
- Non-palpable lesions of the breast detected by mammography — Review of 1182 consecutive histologically confirmed casesEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 1994
- Likelihood of Malignant Disease for Various Categories of Mammographically Detected, Nonpalpable Breast LesionsMayo Clinic Proceedings, 1993
- Not All Nonpalpable Breast Cancers Are AlikeArchives of Surgery, 1991