Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?

Abstract

To assess the feasibility of using the MRI breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon morphology descriptors to characterize enhancing breast lesions identified on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). The study is a retrospective analysis of the morphology descriptors of 261 enhancing breast lesions identified on CESM in 239 patients. We presented the morphological categorization of the included lesions into focus, mass and non-mass. Further classifications included (1) the multiplicity for "focus" category, (2) the shape, margin and internal enhancement for "mass" category and (3) the distribution and internal enhancement for "non-mass" category. Each morphology descriptor was evaluated individually (irrespective of all other descriptors) by calculating its sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV) and negative-predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios (LRs). The study included 68/261 (26.1%) benign lesions and 193/261 (73.9%) malignant lesions. Intensely enhancing foci, whether single (7/12, 58.3%) or multiple (2/12, 16.7%), were malignant. Descriptors of "irregular"-shape (PPV: 92.4%) and "non-circumscribed" margin (odds ratio: 55.2, LR positive: 4.77; p-value: <0.001) were more compatible with malignancy. Internal mass enhancement patterns showed a very low specificity (58.0%) and NPV (40.0%). Non-mass enhancement (NME) was detected in 81/261 lesions. Asymmetrical NME in 81% (n = 52/81) lesions was malignant lesions and internal enhancement patterns indicative of malignancy were the heterogeneous and clumped ones. We can apply the MRI morphology descriptors to characterize lesions on CESM, but with few expectations. In many situations, irregular-shaped, non-circumscribed masses and NME with focal, ductal or segmental distribution and heterogeneous or clumped enhancement are the most suggestive descriptors of malignant pathologies. (1) The MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors can be applied in the characterization of enhancing lesions on CESM with a few exceptions. (2) Multiple bilateral intensely enhancing foci should not be included under the normal background parenchymal enhancement unless they are proved to be benign by biopsy. (3) Mass lesion features that indicated malignancy were irregular-shaped, spiculated and irregular margins and heterogeneous internal enhancement patterns. The rim enhancement pattern should not be considered as a descriptor of malignant lesions unless CESM is coupled with an ultrasound examination.