The diagnostic value of BI-RADS classification on digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnosis of malignancy in breast lesions among patients with dense breasts
Main Article Content
Abstract
This analytical cross-sectional study was conducted in 91 patients with 103 breast lesions in dense breasts to evaluate the diagnostic performance of BI-RADS classification on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for malignancy, using histopathological findings as the reference standard. The results showed that malignancy rates increased progressively with higher BI-RADS categories; BI-RADS 1–3 lesions were predominantly benign, whereas malignancy rates increased from BI-RADS 4A to 4C and were highest in BI-RADS 5 (p for trend < 0.001). Across the evaluated thresholds, BI-RADS ≥ 4A demonstrated the highest sensitivity (0.976), while BI-RADS ≥ 5 showed the highest specificity and positive predictive value, at 0.984 and 0.964, respectively. The BI-RADS ≥ 4B threshold yielded the highest accuracy and AUC in the study sample (0.871). BI-RADS classification on DBT is valuable for malignancy risk stratification in breast lesions among patients with dense breasts. In this context, the BI-RADS ≥ 4A threshold is clinically meaningful for minimizing missed malignant lesions, whereas the BI-RADS ≥ 4B threshold should be regarded only as a statistical reference point and should not replace clinical assessment or biopsy indications according to current BI-RADS recommendations.
Article Details
Keywords
BI-RADS classification, digital breast tomosynthesis, malignancy diagnosis, dense breasts
References
2. Waheed H, Masroor I, Afzal S, Alvi MI, Jahanzeb S. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Additional Diagnostic Mammographic Views for the Evaluation of Asymmetric Mammographic Densities. Cureus. 2020; 12(8): e9637. doi: 10.7759/cureus.9637.
3. Chotai N, Renganathan R, Uematsu T, et al. Breast Cancer Screening in Asian Countries: Epidemiology, Screening Practices, Outcomes, Challenges, and Future Directions. Korean J Radiol. 2025; 26(8): 743-758. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2025.0338.
4. Payne NR, Hickman SE, Black R, Priest AN, Hudson S, Gilbert FJ. Breast density effect on the sensitivity of digital screening mammography in a UK cohort. Eur Radiol. 2025; 35(1): 177-187. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10951-w.
5. Ko MJ, Park DA, Kim SH, et al. Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Detecting Breast Cancer in the Diagnostic Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Korean J Radiol. 2021; 22(8): 1240-1252. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.1227.
6. Sanmugasiva VV, Ramli Hamid MT, Fadzli F, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis in combination with 2D mammography for the characterisation of mammographic abnormalities. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1): 20628. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77456-6.
7. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5 ed. American College of Radiology; 2013.
8. Phi XA, Tagliafico A, Houssami N, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1): 380. doi: 10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3.
9. Hassan RM, Almalki YE, Basha MAA, et al. The Impact of Adding Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to BI-RADS Categorization of Mammographically Equivocal Breast Lesions. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023; 13(8). doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13081423.
10. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology. 2013; 266(1): 89-95. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120552.
11. Takamoto Y, Tsunoda H, Kikuchi M, et al. Role of breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer for Japanese women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013; 14(5): 3037-40. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.5.3037.
12. Lại Thu Hương, Lưu Hồng Nhung, Phạm Minh Thông. Giá trị của cắt lớp tuyến vú kỹ thuật số (DBT) trong chẩn đoán ung thư vú. Tạp chí Điện quang & Y học hạt nhân Việt Nam. 2022(26): 46-52. doi: 10.55046/vjrnm.26.453.2016.