Cysts within Otherwise Probably Benign Solid Breast Masses and the Risk of Malignancy

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study is to assess whether the largest cyst diameter is useful for BI-RADS ultrasonography classification of predominantly solid breast masses with an oval shape, circumscribed margins, and largest axis parallel to the skin, which, except for the cystic component, would be likely classified as benign.

Methods This study received approval from the local institutional review board. From March 2009 to August 2014, we prospectively biopsied 170 breast masses from 164 women. We grouped the largest cyst and mass diameters according to histopathological diagnoses. We used Student's t-test, linear regression, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for statistical assessment.

Results Histopathological examination revealed 143 (84%) benign and 27 (16%) malignant masses. The mean largest mass diameter was larger among malignant (mean ± standard deviation, 34.1 ± 16.6 mm) than benign masses (24.7 ± 16.7 mm) (P < 0.008). The mean largest cyst diameter was also larger among malignant (9.9 ± 7.1 mm) than benign masses (4.6 ± 3.6 mm) (P < 0.001). Agreement between measurements of the largest mass and cyst diameters was low (R² = 0.26). AUC for the largest cyst diameter (0.78) was similar to the AUC for the largest mass diameter (0.69) (p = 0.2). A largest cyst diameter < 3, ≥ 3 to < 11, and ≥ 11 mm had a positive predictive value of 0, 15, and 52%, respectively.

Conclusion A largest cystic component < 3 mm identified within breast masses that show favorable characteristics may be considered clinically inconsequential in ultrasonography characterization. Conversely, masses with a largest cystic component ≥ 3 mm should be classified as BI-RADS-US category 4.

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar se o maior diâmetro do cisto é útil para a classificação ultrassonográfica BI-RADS de nódulos mamários predominantemente sólidos, com forma oval, margens circunscritas e maior eixo paralelo à pele que, exceto pela presença do componente cístico, seriam classificados como provavelmente benignos.

Métodos Este estudo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética local. De março de 2009 a agosto de 2014, 170 nódulos mamários de 164 mulheres foram prospectivamente biópsiados. As medidas do maior diâmetro do maior cisto e do maior diâmetro do nódulo foram agrupados de acordo com os diagnósticos histopatológicos. O teste t de Student, a regressão linear e a área sob a curva ROC (AUC) foram utilizados para a avaliação estatística.

Resultados O exame histopatológico revelou 143 (84%) nódulos benignos e 27 (16%) nódulos malignos. A média da medida do maior diâmetro dos nódulos foi maior entre os nódulos malignos (média ± desvio padrão, 34,1 ± 16,6 mm) do que nos nódulos benignos (24,7 ± 16,7 mm) (p < 0,008). A média do maior diâmetro do maior cisto também foi maior entre os nódulos malignos (9,9 ± 7,1 mm) do que nos nódulos benignos (4,6 ± 3,6 mm) (p < 0,001). A concordância entre as medidas dos maiores diâmetros dos nódulos e do maior diâmetro do maior cisto foi baixa (R² = 0,26). A AUC do maior diâmetro do maior cisto (0,78) foi semelhante à AUC do maior diâmetro do nódulo (0,69) (p = 0,2). Os maiores diâmetros dos maiores cistos medindo < 3; ≥ 3 e < 11; e ≥ 11 mm tiveram um valor preditivo positivo de 0, 15 e 52%, respectivamente.

Conclusão Componentes císticos < 3 mm identificados dentro de nódulos mamários que apresentam as demais características provavelmente benignas podem ser considerados clinicamente irrelevantes na caracterização ultrassonográfica. Por outro lado, nódulos que apresentam um componente cístico medindo ≥ 3 mm devem ser classificadas na categoria BI-RADS-US 4.

Keywords

breast cancer - breast imaging reporting and data system - breast sonography - circumscribed masses - complex masses

Palavras-chave

câncer de mama - BI-RADS - ultrassonografia mamária - nódulos circunscritos - nódulos complexos

• References

• 1 Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management—follow-up and outcome. Radiology 2008; 248 (3) 773-781
• 2 Jales RM, Sarian LO, Torresan R, Marussi EF, Alvares BR, Derchain S. Simple rules for ultrasonographic subcategorization of BI-RADS®-US 4 breast masses. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82 (8) 1231-1235
• 3 Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA, Whitman GJ, Feldman MI, Madjar H. ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound [Internet]. In: D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013. [cited 2015 Nov 12]. Available from: http://www.ashevilleradiology.com/physicians/ACR_BIRADS_ATLAS.pdf
• 4 Berg WA, Campassi CI, Ioffe OB. Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 2003; 227 (1) 183-191
• 5 Chang YW, Kwon KH, Goo DE, Choi DL, Lee HK, Yang SB. Sonographic differentiation of benign and malignant cystic lesions of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26 (1) 47-53
• 6 Hsu HH, Yu JC, Lee HS , et al. Complex cystic lesions of the breast on ultrasonography: feature analysis and BI-RADS assessment. Eur J Radiol 2011; 79 (1) 73-79
• 7 Huff JG. The sonographic findings and differing clinical implications of simple, complicated, and complex breast cysts. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009; 7 (10) 1101-1104 , quiz 1105
• 8 Doshi DJ, March DE, Crisi GM, Coughlin BF. Complex cystic breast masses: diagnostic approach and imaging-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 2007; 27 (Suppl. 01) S53-S64
• 9 Chen M, Zhan WW, Wang WP. Cystic breast lesions by conventional ultrasonography: sonographic subtype-pathologic correlation and BI-RADS Assessment. Arch Med Sci 2014; 10 (1) 76-83
• 10 Berg WA, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: consider annual follow-up. Radiology 2013; 268 (3) 673-683
• 11 Jales RM, Sarian LO, Peralta CF , et al. Complex breast masses: assessment of malignant potential based on cyst diameter. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31 (4) 581-587
• 12 R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing: reference index [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2015 [cited Dez 20]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/fullrefman.pdf
• 13 Athanasiou A, Aubert E, Vincent Salomon A, Tardivon A. Complex cystic breast masses in ultrasound examination. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014; 95 (2) 169-179
• 14 Pinto J, Aguiar AT, Duarte H, Vilaverde F, Rodrigues Â, Krug JL. Simple and complex fibroadenomas: are there any distinguishing sonographic features?. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33 (3) 415-419
• 15 Dupont WD, Page DL, Parl FF , et al. Long-term risk of breast cancer in women with fibroadenoma. N Engl J Med 1994; 331 (1) 10-15
• 16 Rowell MD, Perry RR, Hsiu JG, Barranco SC. Phyllodes tumors. Am J Surg 1993; 165 (3) 376-379
• 17 Bhargav PR, Mishra A, Agarwal G, Agarwal A, Verma AK, Mishra SK. Phyllodes tumour of the breast: clinicopathological analysis of recurrent vs. non-recurrent cases. Asian J Surg 2009; 32 (4) 224-228
• 18 Gatta G, Iaselli F, Parlato V, Di Grezia G, Grassi R, Rotondo A. Differential diagnosis between fibroadenoma, giant fibroadenoma and phyllodes tumour: sonographic features and core needle biopsy. Radiol Med (Torino) 2011; 116 (6) 905-918
• 19 Liberman L, Bonaccio E, Hamele-Bena D, Abramson AF, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD. Benign and malignant phyllodes tumors: mammographic and sonographic findings. Radiology 1996; 198 (1) 121-124
• 20 Yilmaz E, Sal S, Lebe B. Differentiation of phyllodes tumors versus fibroadenomas. Acta Radiol 2002; 43 (1) 34-39
• 21 Chao TC, Lo YF, Chen SC, Chen MF. Sonographic features of phyllodes tumors of the breast. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20 (1) 64-71
• 22 Bode MK, Rissanen T, Apaja-Sarkkinen M. Ultrasonography and core needle biopsy in the differential diagnosis of fibroadenoma and tumor phyllodes. Acta Radiol 2007; 48 (7) 708-713
• 23 Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ, Ellis IO, Cornford E. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187 (5) 1377-1380
• 24 Luck AA, Evans AJ, James JJ , et al. Breast carcinoma with basal phenotype: mammographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191 (2) 346-351
• 25 Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim HA, Noh WC, Kim MS, Lee SA. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 2010; 20 (5) 1111-1117