Análisis del valor predictivo positivo de las subcategorías BI-RADS ®4: resultados preliminares en 880 lesiones / Analysis of the positive predictive value of the subcategories of BI-RADS ® 4 lesions: preliminary results in 880 lesions

Objetivos. Las subcategorías BI-RADS®4A/B/C comprenden amplios rangos de valores predictivos positivos (VPP) y no se ha definido su correlación con descriptores específicos. Nuestro objetivo es analizar el VPP de las subcategorías y los descriptores asignados a ellas en lesiones mamográficas y ecográficas. Material y método. Analizamos 880 lesiones confirmadas histológicamente y subclasificadas prospectivamente como BI-RADS®4A/B/C entre 2003-2010. El estudio estadístico incluyó pruebas de significación, tablas de contingencia y estudio de riesgos relativos (RR) sobre 545 lesiones mamográficas y 627 ecográficas. Resultados. Los VPP por subcategoría fueron 8,8%-4A, 18,9%-4B y 58,3%-4C. La correlación entre VPP y lesiones fue la esperada, excepto: VPP 4A>4B en nódulos ecográficos irregulares/márgenes no circunscritos y microcalcificaciones con distribución segmentaria, asignación de BI-RADS®4 a lesiones BI-RADS®3 y consideración de lesiones idénticas en distintas subcategorías. En el estudio por tablas de contingencia, las lesiones mamográficas estuvieron en rangos de 4B/C y las ecográficas en 4B. Los RR fueron significativos en nódulos mamográficos para morfología irregular (RR=3,205) y márgenes espiculados (RR=2,469), y para microcalcificaciones pleomórficas (RR=2,531), amorfas (RR=0,334) y distribución segmentaria (RR=1,895). En la ecografía, los RR fueron significativos en todos los descriptores, con valores mayores de uno en morfología irregular (RR=1,977) y márgenes no circunscritos (RR=2,277). Conclusiones. Nuestros resultados concuerdan con los publicados. Las excepciones encontradas pueden justificarse por aspectos relacionados con la variabilidad y factores no radiológicos con posible influencia en la categorización y VPP. Es necesario elaborar modelos matemáticos que permitan la categorización objetiva e incluyan factores no relacionados con la imagen(AU)

Objectives. The positive predictive values (PPV) of the subcategories of BI-RADS® 4 lesions (A/B/C) vary widely, and their correlation with specific descriptors has yet to be defined. We aimed to analyze the PPV of the subcategories and of the mammographic and ultrasonographic descriptors assigned to each. Material and methods. We analyzed 880 histologically confirmed lesions prospectively classified as BI-RADS® 4 A/B/C between 2003 and 2010. The statistical analysis included significance tests, contingency tables, and relative risk (RR) ratios, calculated for 545 mammographic lesions and 627 ultrasonographic lesions. Results. The PPV was 8.8% for subcategory 4A, 18.9% for subcategory 4B, and 58.3% for subcategory 4C. The correlation between PPV and lesions was what we expected, with three exceptions: a) the PPV of 4A was greater than that of 4B in nodules that were irregular or had uncircumscribed margins on ultrasonography and in microcalcifications with segmental distribution on mammography, b) BI-RADS® 3 lesions classified as BI-RADS® 4, and c) identical lesions classified in distinct subcategories. In the contingency table analysis, the mammographic lesions were 4B/C and the ultrasonographic lesions were 4B. On mammography, the RR was significant for nodules with irregular shape (RR=3.205) and for those with spiculated margins (RR=2.469), as well as for microcalcifications that were pleomorphic (RR=2.531) or amorphous (RR=0.334), and for those with segmental (RR=1.895). On ultrasonography, the RR were significant for all the descriptors, with values greater than 1 for irregular shape (RR=1.977) and uncircumscribed margins (RR=2.277). Conclusions. Our results corroborate previous reports. The exceptions can be explained by aspects related to variability and nonradiological factors that might influence the classification and PPV. Mathematical models should be developed to enable the objective classification and these should include factors not related to imaging(AU)

[Analysis of the positive predictive value of the subcategories of BI-RADS(®) 4 lesions: preliminary results in 880 lesions]. / Análisis del valor predictivo positivo de las subcategorías BI-RADS(®)4: resultados preliminares en 880 lesiones.

OBJECTIVES: The positive predictive values (PPV) of the subcategories of BI-RADS(®) 4 lesions (A/B/C) vary widely, and their correlation with specific descriptors has yet to be defined. We aimed to analyze the PPV of the subcategories and of the mammographic and ultrasonographic descriptors assigned to each. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed 880 histologically confirmed lesions prospectively classified as BI-RADS(®) 4 A/B/C between 2003 and 2010. The statistical analysis included significance tests, contingency tables, and relative risk (RR) ratios, calculated for 545 mammographic lesions and 627 ultrasonographic lesions. RESULTS: The PPV was 8.8% for subcategory 4A, 18.9% for subcategory 4B, and 58.3% for subcategory 4C. The correlation between PPV and lesions was what we expected, with three exceptions: a) the PPV of 4A was greater than that of 4B in nodules that were irregular or had uncircumscribed margins on ultrasonography and in microcalcifications with segmental distribution on mammography, b) BI-RADS(®) 3 lesions classified as BI-RADS(®) 4, and c) identical lesions classified in distinct subcategories. In the contingency table analysis, the mammographic lesions were 4B/C and the ultrasonographic lesions were 4B. On mammography, the RR was significant for nodules with irregular shape (RR=3.205) and for those with spiculated margins (RR=2.469), as well as for microcalcifications that were pleomorphic (RR=2.531) or amorphous (RR=0.334), and for those with segmental (RR=1.895). On ultrasonography, the RR were significant for all the descriptors, with values greater than 1 for irregular shape (RR=1.977) and uncircumscribed margins (RR=2.277). CONCLUSIONS: Our results corroborate previous reports. The exceptions can be explained by aspects related to variability and nonradiological factors that might influence the classification and PPV. Mathematical models should be developed to enable the objective classification and these should include factors not related to imaging.

[Osteitis in secondary syphilis]. / Osteítis en sífilis secundaria.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to report two patients with osteitis in secondary syphilis. The increase in the number of cases of syphilis, linked to the changes in sexual behavior and to the increase of immigrants from areas of high prevalence of STD, as well as its relationship with HIV infection, makes important to clinicians become aware of unusual presentation of secondary syphilis. PATIENTS: We report two patients diagnosed of secondary syphilis, one of them with HIV infection. Both showed dermatological lesions in palms and soles, malaise and fever. Bone scintigraphy showed significant uptake in parietal and frontal bones in both patients. Clinical response was quickly achieved after penicillin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with secondary syphilis and osteoarticular symptoms luetic osteitis must be included in differential diagnosis. Bone scintigraphy should be the first diagnostic tool because it possibilities to perform a total body scan which allows localizing asymptomatic lesions. Moreover bone scan shows a high sensitivity.

Osteítis en sífilis secundaria / Osteitis in secondary syphilis

Introducción: El objetivo del presente trabajo es presentar dos casos de osteítis en sífilis secundaria. El aumento de la incidencia de sífilis, debido a los cambios en los comportamientos sexuales y al aumento de los inmigrantes procedentes de áreas con elevada prevalencia de enfermedades de transmisión sexual (ETS), y su relación con el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH), hace que sea importante familiarizarse con formas menos frecuentes de presentación de esta infección sistémica. Pacientes: Se presentan dos pacientes diagnosticados de sífilis secundaria, uno de ellos con infección por el VIH y el otro no. En el momento del diagnóstico ambos tenían lesiones cutáneas que afectaban palmas y plantas, síntomas generales y fiebre. La gammagrafía ósea demostró en ambos casos lesiones osteoblásticas múltiples en los huesos parietales y frontal. Los dos enfermos respondieron con mejoría clínica al tratamiento con penicilina. Conclusiones: En los pacientes con sífilis secundaria y sintomatología osteoarticular se debe hacer el diagnóstico diferencial de afectación ósea sifilítica. Recomendamos como técnica de elección la gammagrafía ósea debido a su gran sensibilidad y a la posibilidad de realizar rastreos corporales que permiten el diagnóstico de lesiones sintomáticas. (AU)