A Comparative Assessment of MR BI-RADS 4 Breast Lesions With Kaiser Score and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value

Development and Validation of a Diagnostic Model for Enhancing Lesions on Breast MRI: Based on Kaiser Score

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aims to develop and validate a new diagnostic model based on the Kaiser score for preoperative diagnosis of the malignancy probability of enhancing lesions on breast MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study collected consecutive inpatient data (including imaging data, clinical data, and pathological data) from two different institutions. All patients underwent preoperative breast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) examinations and were found to have enhancing lesions. These lesions were confirmed as benign or malignant by surgical resection or biopsy pathology (all carcinomas in situ were confirmed by pathology after surgical resection). Data from one institution were used as the training set(284 cases), and data from the other institution were used as the validation set(107 cases). The Kaiser score was directly incorporated into the diagnostic model as a single predictive variable. Other predictive variables were screened using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to integrate the Kaiser score and other selected predictive variables to construct a new diagnostic model, presented in the form of a nomogram. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, DeLong test, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were adopted to evaluate and compare the discrimination of the diagnostic model for breast enhancing lesions based on Kaiser score (hereinafter referred to as the "breast lesion diagnostic model") and the Kaiser score alone. Calibration curves were used to assess the calibration of the breast lesion diagnostic model, and decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the diagnostic model and the Kaiser score.

RESULTS

LASSO regression indicated that, besides the indicators already included in the Kaiser score system, "age", "MIP sign", "associated imaging features", and "clinical breast examination (CBE) results" were other valuable diagnostic parameters for breast enhancing lesions. In the training set, the AUCs of the breast lesion diagnostic model and the Kaiser score were 0.948 and 0.869, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). In the validation set, the AUCs of the breast lesion diagnostic model and the Kaiser score were 0.956 and 0.879, respectively, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The DeLong test, NRI, and IDI showed that the breast lesion diagnostic model had a higher discrimination ability for breast enhancing lesions compared to the Kaiser score alone, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The calibration curves indicated good calibration of the breast lesion diagnostic model. DCA demonstrated that the breast lesion diagnostic model had higher clinical application value, with greater net clinical benefit over a wide range of diagnostic thresholds compared to the Kaiser score.

CONCLUSION

The Kaiser score-based breast lesion diagnostic model, which integrates "age," "MIP sign", "associated imaging features", and "CBE results", can be used for the preoperative diagnosis of the malignancy probability of breast enhancing lesions, and it outperforms the classic Kaiser score in terms of diagnostic performance for such lesions.

Application of the Kaiser score on contrast-enhanced mammography in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions: comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging

Background

The Kaiser score (KS) as a clinical decision rule has been proven capable of enhancing the diagnostic efficiency for suspicious breast lesions and obviating unnecessary benign biopsies. However, the consistency of KS in contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM-KS) and KS on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI-KS) is still unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic efficacy and agreement of CEM-KS and MRI-KS for suspicious breast lesions.

Methods

This retrospective study included 207 patients from April 2019 to June 2022. The radiologists assigned a diagnostic category to all lesions using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Subsequently, they were asked to assign a final diagnostic category for each lesion according to the KS. The diagnostic performance was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The agreement in terms of the kinetic curve and the KS categories for CEM and MRI were evaluated via the Cohen kappa coefficient.

Results

The AUC was higher for the CEM-KS category assignment than for the CEM-BI-RADS category assignment (0.856 vs. 0.776; P=0.047). The AUC was higher for MRI-KS than for MRI-BI-RADS (0.841 vs. 0.752; P =0.015). The AUC of CEM-KS was not significantly different from that of MRI-KS (0.856 vs. 0.841; P=0.538). The difference between the AUCs for CEM-BI-RADS and MRI-BI-RADS was not statistically significant (0.776 vs. 0.752; P=0.400). The kappa agreement for the characterization of suspicious breast lesions using CEM-KS and MRI-KS was 0.885.

Conclusions

The KS substantially improved the diagnostic performance of suspicious breast lesions, not only in MRI but also in CEM. CEM-KS and MRI-KS showed similar diagnostic performance and almost perfect agreement for the characterization of suspicious breast lesions. Therefore, CEM holds promise as an alternative when breast MRI is not available or contraindicated.

Breast lesions on MRI in mass and non-mass enhancement: Kaiser score and modified Kaiser score + for readers of variable experience

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic performance of three readers using BI-RADS and Kaiser score (KS) based on mass and non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions.

METHODS

A total of 630 lesions, 393 malignant and 237 benign, 458 mass and 172 NME, were analyzed. Three radiologists with 3 years, 6 years, and 13 years of experience made diagnoses. 596 cases had diffusion-weighted imaging, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was measured. For lesions with ADC > 1.4 × 10-3 mm2/s, the KS was reduced by 4 as the modified KS +, and the benefit was assessed.

RESULTS

When using BI-RADS, AUC was 0.878, 0.915, and 0.941 for mass, and 0.771, 0.838, 0.902 for NME for Reader-1, 2, and 3, respectively, better for mass than for NME. The diagnostic accuracy of KS was improved compared to BI-RADS for less experienced readers. For Reader-1, AUC was increased from 0.878 to 0.916 for mass (p = 0.005) and from 0.771 to 0.822 for NME (p = 0.124). Based on the cut-off value of BI-RADS ≥ 4B and KS ≥ 5 as malignant, the sensitivity of KS by Readers-1 and -2 was significantly higher for both Mass and NME. When ADC was considered to change to modified KS +, the AUC and the accuracy for all three readers were improved, showing higher specificity with slightly degraded sensitivity.

CONCLUSION

The benefit of KS compared to BI-RADS was most noticeable for the less experienced readers in improving sensitivity. Compared to KS, KS + can improve specificity for all three readers. For NME, the KS and KS + criteria need to be further improved.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

KS provides an intuitive method for diagnosing lesions on breast MRI. BI-RADS and KS face greater difficulties in evaluating NME compared to mass lesions. Adding ADC to the KS can improve specificity with slightly degraded sensitivity.

KEY POINTS

KS provides an intuitive method for interpreting breast lesions on MRI, most helpful for novice readers. KS, compared to BI-RADS, improved sensitivity in both mass and NME groups for less experienced readers. NME lesions were considered during the development of the KS flowchart, but may need to be better defined.

Using the Kaiser Score as a clinical decision rule for breast lesion classification: Does computer-assisted curve type analysis improve diagnosis?

PURPOSE

We aimed to investigate the effect of using visual or automatic enhancement curve type assessment on the diagnostic performance of the Kaiser Score (KS), a clinical decision rule for breast MRI.

METHOD

This IRB-approved retrospective study analyzed consecutive conventional BI-RADS 0, 4 or 5 patients who underwent biopsy after 1.5T breast MRI according to EUSOBI recommendations between 2013 and 2015. The KS includes five criteria (spiculations; signal intensity (SI)-time curve type; margins of the lesion; internal enhancement; and presence of edema) resulting in scores from 1 (=lowest) to 11 (=highest risk of breast cancer). Enhancement curve types (Persistent, Plateau or Wash-out) were assessed by two radiologists independently visually and using a pixel-wise color-coded computed parametric map of curve types. KS diagnostic performance differences between readings were compared by ROC analysis.

RESULTS

In total 220 lesions (147 benign, 73 malignant) including mass (n = 148) and non-mass lesions (n = 72) were analyzed. KS reading performance in distinguishing benign from malignant lesions did not differ between visual analysis and parametric map (P = 0.119; visual: AUC 0.875, sensitivity 95 %, specificity 63 %; and map: AUC 0.901, sensitivity 97 %, specificity 65 %). Additionally, analyzing mass and non-mass lesions separately, showed no difference between parametric map based and visual curve type-based KS analysis as well (P = 0.130 and P = 0.787).

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the Kaiser Score is largely independent of the curve type assessment methodology, confirming its robustness as a clinical decision rule for breast MRI in any type of breast lesion in clinical routine.

Added value of clinical decision rules for the management of enhancing breast MRI lesions: A systematic comparison of the Kaiser score and the Göttingen score

PURPOSE

We investigated the added value of two internationally used clinical decision rules in the management of enhancing lesions on breast MRI.

METHODS

This retrospective, institutional review board approved study included consecutive patients from two different populations. Patients received breast MRI according to the recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI). Initially, all examinations were assessed by expert readers without using clinical decision rules. All lesions rated as category 4 or 5 according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System were histologically confirmed. These lesions were re-evaluated by an expert reader blinded to the histology. He assigned each lesion a Göttingen score (GS) and a Kaiser score (KS) on different occasions. To provide an estimate on inter-reader agreement, a second fellowship-trained reader assessed a subset of these lesions. Subgroup analyses based on lesion type (mass vs. non-mass), size (>1 cm vs. ≤ 1 cm), menopausal status, and significant background parenchymal enhancement were conducted. The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) for the GS and KS were compared, and the potential to avoid unnecessary biopsies was determined according to previously established cutoffs (KS > 4, GS > 3) RESULTS: 527 lesions in 506 patients were included (mean age: 51.8 years, inter-quartile-range: 43.0-61.0 years). 131/527 lesions were malignant (24.9 %; 95 %-confidence-interval: 21.3-28.8). In all subgroups, the AUCs of the KS (median = 0.91) were higher than those of the GS (median = 0.83). Except for "premenopausal patients" (p = 0.057), these differences were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.01). Kappa agreement was higher for the KS (0.922) than for the GS (0.358).

CONCLUSION

Both the KS and the GS provided added value for the management of enhancing lesions on breast MRI. The KS was superior to the GS in terms of avoiding unnecessary biopsies and showed superior inter-reader agreement; therefore, it may be regarded as the clinical decision rule of choice.

Quantitative evaluation of Kaiser score in diagnosing breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for patients with high-grade background parenchymal enhancement

Background

High-grade background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), including moderate and marked, poses a considerable challenge for the diagnosis of breast disease due to its tendency to increase the rate of false positives and false negatives. The purpose of our study was to explore whether the Kaiser score can be used for more accurate assessment of benign and malignant lesions in high-grade BPE compared with the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) scans from 2 medical centers. Included were patients who underwent DCE-MRI demonstrating high-grade BPE and who had a pathology-confirmed diagnosis. Excluded were patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy or who had undergone biopsy prior to MRI examination. Two physicians with more than 7 years of experience specializing in breast imaging diagnosis jointly reviewed breast magnetic resonance (MR) images. The Kaiser score was used to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the BI-RADS from different BPE groups and different enhancement types. The performance of the Kaiser score and BI-RADS were compared according to diagnostic accuracy.

Results

A total of 126 cases of high-grade BPE from 2 medical centers were included in this study. The Kaiser score had a higher specificity and PPV than did the BI-RADS (87.5% vs. 46.3%) as well as a higher PPV (94.3% vs. 79.8%). The value of diagnostic accuracy and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the Kaiser score (accuracy 0.928; 95% CI: 0.883-0.973) was larger than that for BI-RADS (accuracy 0.810; 95% CI: 0.741-0.879). Moreover, the Kaiser score had a significantly higher value of diagnostic accuracy for both mass and non-mass enhancement, especially mass lesions (Kaiser score: accuracy 0.947, 95% CI: 0.902-0.992; BI-RADS: accuracy 0.821, 95% CI: 0.782-0.860), with a P value of 0.006.

Conclusions

The Kaiser score is a useful diagnostic tool for the evaluation of high-grade BPE lesions, with a higher specificity, PPV, and diagnostic accuracy as compared to the BI-RADS.

Combination of ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-based radiomics and artificial neural network in assessing BI-RADS 4 breast lesions: Potential to avoid unnecessary biopsies

Objectives

To investigate whether combining radiomics extracted from ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) with an artificial neural network enables differentiation of MR BI-RADS 4 breast lesions and thereby avoids false-positive biopsies.

Methods

This retrospective study consecutively included patients with MR BI-RADS 4 lesions. The ultrafast imaging was performed using Differential sub-sampling with cartesian ordering (DISCO) technique and the tenth and fifteenth postcontrast DISCO images (DISCO-10 and DISCO-15) were selected for further analysis. An experienced radiologist used freely available software (FAE) to perform radiomics extraction. After principal component analysis (PCA), a multilayer perceptron artificial neural network (ANN) to distinguish between malignant and benign lesions was developed and tested using a random allocation approach. ROC analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance.

Results

173 patients (mean age 43.1 years, range 18-69 years) with 182 lesions (95 benign, 87 malignant) were included. Three types of independent principal components were obtained from the radiomics based on DISCO-10, DISCO-15, and their combination, respectively. In the testing dataset, ANN models showed excellent diagnostic performance with AUC values of 0.915-0.956. Applying the high-sensitivity cutoffs identified in the training dataset demonstrated the potential to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies by 63.33%-83.33% at the price of one false-negative diagnosis within the testing dataset.

Conclusions

The ultrafast DCE-MRI radiomics-based machine learning model could classify MR BI-RADS category 4 lesions into benign or malignant, highlighting its potential for future application as a new tool for clinical diagnosis.

Diagnostic performance of the Kaiser score in the evaluation of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced mammography

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate whether the Kaiser score (KS) could improve the diagnostic performance of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) in evaluating breast enhancing lesions on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

METHODS

Three hundred fifty-nine patients with 375 lesions (231 malignant and 144 benign) were included in this retrospective study from April 2019 to December 2021.Two readers with different levels of experience in breast imaging were asked to give a BI-RADS assessment category according to the CEM BI-RADS and final score based on the KS. The diagnostic performance of all lesions, mass and non-mass enhancement (NME) were assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were measured. The weighted kappa coefficients were calculated to investigate the interreader agreement.

RESULTS

The AUCs of the KS for all lesions were 0.915 (95 %CI: 0.884-0.947) and 0.876 (95 %CI: 0.838-0.914) for two readers. When mass and NME were evaluated separately, the AUCs of the KS for mass were higher than those for NME (p < 0.001). The AUCs of BI-RADS for all lesion diagnoses ranged between 0.821 (95 %CI: 0.778-0.864) and 0.842(95 %CI: 0.801-0.883) for two readers. The AUCs of the KS were higher than those of BI-RADS (p < 0.001, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in the sensitivity between the KS (97.4 %) and BI-RADS (99.6 %) for all lesions (p = 0.130). The specificity of the KS was significantly higher than that of BI-RADS (p < 0.001). Compared with BI-RADS, the application of the KS could have potentially obviated 41.7 % to 47.9 % unnecessary biopsies in 144 benign lesions. Interreader agreement between the two readers of the KS was almost perfect (k = 0.883 [95 % CI: 0.842-0.924]).

CONCLUSION

The use of the KS provided a high diagnostic performance in distinguishing malignant and benign breast lesions on CEM and outperformed BI-RADS. The application of the KS can downgrade up to 47.9% of unnecessary biopsies of benign breast lesions.

Evaluation of the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions using synthetic relaxometry and the Kaiser score

Objective

To investigate whether there is added value of quantitative parameters from synthetic magnetic resonance imaging (SyMRI) as a complement to the Kaiser score (KS) to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions.

Materials and methods

In this single-institution study, 122 patients who underwent breast MRI from March 2020 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. SyMRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI were performed using a 3.0-T system. Two experienced radiologists independently assigned the KS and measured the quantitative values of T1 relaxation time (T1), T2 relaxation time (T2), and proton density (PD) from SyMRI. Pathology was regarded as the gold standard. The diagnostic values were compared using the appropriate statistical tests.

Results

There were 122 lesions (86 malignant and 36 benign) in 122 women. The T1 value was identified as the only independent factor for the differentiation of malignant and benign lesions. The diagnostic accuracy of incorporating the T1 into the KS protocol (T1+KS) was 95.1% and 92.1% for all lesions (ALL) and The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 lesions, respectively, which was significantly higher than that of either T1 (ALL: 82.8%, P = 0.0001; BI-RADS 4: 78.9%, P = 0.002) or KS (ALL: 90.2%, P = 0.031; BI-RADS 4: 84.2%, P = 0.031) alone. The sensitivity and specificity of T1+KS were also higher than those of the T1 or KS alone. The combined diagnosis could have avoided another 15.6% biopsies compared with using KS alone.

Conclusions

Incorporating T1 into the KS protocol improved both the sensitivity and specificity to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions, thus avoiding unnecessary invasive procedures.

Assessment of breast lesions by the Kaiser score for differential diagnosis on MRI: the added value of ADC and machine learning modeling

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of Kaiser score (KS) adjusted with the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (KS+) and machine learning (ML) modeling.

METHODS

A dataset of 402 malignant and 257 benign lesions was identified. Two radiologists assigned the KS. If a lesion with KS > 4 had ADC > 1.4 × 10^-3 mm²/s, the KS was reduced by 4 to become KS+. In order to consider the full spectrum of ADC as a continuous variable, the KS and ADC values were used to train diagnostic models using 5 ML algorithms. The performance was evaluated using the ROC analysis, compared by the DeLong test. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy achieved using the threshold of KS > 4, KS+ > 4, and ADC ≤ 1.4 × 10^-3 mm²/s were obtained and compared by the McNemar test.

RESULTS

The ROC curves of KS, KS+, and all ML models had comparable AUC in the range of 0.883-0.921, significantly higher than that of ADC (0.837, p < 0.0001). The KS had sensitivity = 97.3% and specificity = 59.1%; and the KS+ had sensitivity = 95.5% with significantly improved specificity to 68.5% (p < 0.0001). However, when setting at the same sensitivity of 97.3%, KS+ could not improve specificity. In ML analysis, the logistic regression model had the best performance. At sensitivity = 97.3% and specificity = 65.3%, i.e., compared to KS, 16 false-positives may be avoided without affecting true cancer diagnosis (p = 0.0015).

CONCLUSION

Using dichotomized ADC to modify KS to KS+ can improve specificity, but at the price of lowered sensitivity. Machine learning algorithms may be applied to consider the ADC as a continuous variable to build more accurate diagnostic models.

KEY POINTS

• When using ADC to modify the Kaiser score to KS+, the diagnostic specificity according to the results of two independent readers was improved by 9.4-9.7%, at the price of slightly degraded sensitivity by 1.5-1.8%, and overall had improved accuracy by 2.6-2.9%. • When the KS and the continuous ADC values were combined to train models by machine learning algorithms, the diagnostic specificity achieved by the logistic regression model could be significantly improved from 59.1 to 65.3% (p = 0.0015), while maintaining at the high sensitivity of KS = 97.3%, and thus, the results demonstrated the potential of ML modeling to further evaluate the contribution of ADC. • When setting the sensitivity at the same levels, the modified KS+ and the original KS have comparable specificity; therefore, KS+ with consideration of ADC may not offer much practical help, and the original KS without ADC remains as an excellent robust diagnostic method.

Breast MRI: does a clinical decision algorithm outweigh reader experience?

Objectives

Due to its high sensitivity, DCE MRI of the breast (MRIb) is increasingly used for both screening and assessment purposes. The Kaiser score (KS) is a clinical decision algorithm, which formalizes and guides diagnosis in breast MRI and is expected to compensate for lesser reader experience. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of untrained residents using the KS compared to off-site radiologists experienced in breast imaging using only MR BI-RADS.

Methods

Three off-site, board-certified radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, interpreted MRIb according to the MR BI-RADS scale. The same studies were read by three residents in radiology without prior training in breast imaging using the KS. All readers were blinded to clinical information. Histology was used as the gold standard. Statistical analysis was conducted by comparing the AUC of the ROC curves.

Results

A total of 80 women (median age 52 years) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant) were included. The individual within-group performance of the three expert readers (AUC 0.723–0.742) as well as the three residents was equal (AUC 0.842–0.928), p > 0.05, respectively. But, the rating of each resident using the KS significantly outperformed the experts’ ratings using the MR BI-RADS scale (p ≤ 0.05).

Conclusion

The KS helped residents to achieve better results in reaching correct diagnoses than experienced radiologists empirically assigning MR BI-RADS categories in a clinical “problem solving MRI” setting. These results support that reporting breast MRI benefits more from using a diagnostic algorithm rather than expert experience.

Key Points

• Reporting breast MRI benefits more from using a diagnostic algorithm rather than expert experience in a clinical “problem solving MRI” setting.

• The Kaiser score, which provides a clinical decision algorithm for structured reporting, helps residents to reach an expert level in breast MRI reporting and to even outperform experienced radiologists using MR BI-RADS without further formal guidance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-022-09015-8.