Cargando…

Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions

OBJECTIVE: To compare multiple breast cancer screening methods for evaluating breast non-mass-like lesions (NMLs), and investigate new best screening method for breast non-mass-like lesions and the value of the lexicon of ACR BI-RADS in NML evaluation. METHODS: This retrospective study examined 253...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Jianxing, Cai, Lishan, Pan, Xiyang, Chen, Ling, Chen, Miao, Yan, Dan, Liu, Jia, Luo, Liangping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9677910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36404330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-022-00921-3
_version_ 1784833893178802176
author Zhang, Jianxing
Cai, Lishan
Pan, Xiyang
Chen, Ling
Chen, Miao
Yan, Dan
Liu, Jia
Luo, Liangping
author_facet Zhang, Jianxing
Cai, Lishan
Pan, Xiyang
Chen, Ling
Chen, Miao
Yan, Dan
Liu, Jia
Luo, Liangping
author_sort Zhang, Jianxing
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare multiple breast cancer screening methods for evaluating breast non-mass-like lesions (NMLs), and investigate new best screening method for breast non-mass-like lesions and the value of the lexicon of ACR BI-RADS in NML evaluation. METHODS: This retrospective study examined 253 patients aged 24–68 years who were diagnosed with breast NMLs and described the lexicon of ACR BI-RADS from April 2017 to December 2019. All lesions were evaluated by HHUS, MG, and ABUS to determine BI-RADS category, and underwent pathological examination within six months or at least 2 years of follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) of MG, HHUS and ABUS in the prediction of malignancy were compared. Independent risk factors for malignancy were assessed using non-conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: HHUS, MG and ABUS findings significantly differed between benign and malignant breast NML, including internal echo, hyperechoic spot, peripheral blood flow, internal blood flow, catheter change, peripheral change, coronal features of ABUS, and structural distortion, asymmetry, and calcification in MG. ABUS is superior to MG and HHUS in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, as well as in evaluating the necessity of biopsy and accuracy in identifying malignancy. MG was superior to HHUS in specificity, PPV, and accuracy in evaluating the need for biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: ABUS was superior to HHUS and MG in evaluating the need for biopsy in breast NMLs. Compared to each other, HHUS and MG had their own relative advantages. Internal blood flow, calcification, and coronal plane feature was independent risk factors in NMLs Management, and different screening methods had their own advantages in NML management. The lexicon of ACR BI-RADS could be used not only in the evaluation of mass lesions, but also in the evaluation of NML.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9677910
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96779102022-11-22 Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions Zhang, Jianxing Cai, Lishan Pan, Xiyang Chen, Ling Chen, Miao Yan, Dan Liu, Jia Luo, Liangping BMC Med Imaging Research OBJECTIVE: To compare multiple breast cancer screening methods for evaluating breast non-mass-like lesions (NMLs), and investigate new best screening method for breast non-mass-like lesions and the value of the lexicon of ACR BI-RADS in NML evaluation. METHODS: This retrospective study examined 253 patients aged 24–68 years who were diagnosed with breast NMLs and described the lexicon of ACR BI-RADS from April 2017 to December 2019. All lesions were evaluated by HHUS, MG, and ABUS to determine BI-RADS category, and underwent pathological examination within six months or at least 2 years of follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values (NPV) of MG, HHUS and ABUS in the prediction of malignancy were compared. Independent risk factors for malignancy were assessed using non-conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: HHUS, MG and ABUS findings significantly differed between benign and malignant breast NML, including internal echo, hyperechoic spot, peripheral blood flow, internal blood flow, catheter change, peripheral change, coronal features of ABUS, and structural distortion, asymmetry, and calcification in MG. ABUS is superior to MG and HHUS in sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, as well as in evaluating the necessity of biopsy and accuracy in identifying malignancy. MG was superior to HHUS in specificity, PPV, and accuracy in evaluating the need for biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: ABUS was superior to HHUS and MG in evaluating the need for biopsy in breast NMLs. Compared to each other, HHUS and MG had their own relative advantages. Internal blood flow, calcification, and coronal plane feature was independent risk factors in NMLs Management, and different screening methods had their own advantages in NML management. The lexicon of ACR BI-RADS could be used not only in the evaluation of mass lesions, but also in the evaluation of NML. BioMed Central 2022-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9677910/ /pubmed/36404330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-022-00921-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zhang, Jianxing
Cai, Lishan
Pan, Xiyang
Chen, Ling
Chen, Miao
Yan, Dan
Liu, Jia
Luo, Liangping
Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions
title Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions
title_full Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions
title_fullStr Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions
title_full_unstemmed Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions
title_short Comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions
title_sort comparison and risk factors analysis of multiple breast cancer screening methods in the evaluation of breast non-mass-like lesions
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9677910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36404330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12880-022-00921-3
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangjianxing comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions
AT cailishan comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions
AT panxiyang comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions
AT chenling comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions
AT chenmiao comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions
AT yandan comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions
AT liujia comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions
AT luoliangping comparisonandriskfactorsanalysisofmultiplebreastcancerscreeningmethodsintheevaluationofbreastnonmasslikelesions