Research Article| Volume 196, P1-5, January 2016

The accuracy of the SONOBREAST statistical model in comparison to BI-RADS for the prediction of malignancy in solid breast nodules detected at ultrasonography

Published:September 29, 2015DOI:



      The objective of the present study was to compare the accuracy of SONOBREAST for the prediction of malignancy in solid breast nodules detected at ultrasonography with that of the BI-RADS system and to assess the agreement between these two methods.

      Study design

      This prospective study included 274 women and evaluated 500 breast nodules detected at ultrasonography. The probability of malignancy was calculated based on the SONOBREAST model, available at, and on the BI-RADS system, with results being compared with the anatomopathology report.


      The lesions were considered suspect in 171 cases (34.20%), according to both SONOBREAST and BI-RADS. Agreement between the methods was perfect, as shown by a Kappa coefficient of 1 (p < 0.001). SONOBREAST and BI-RADS proved identical insofar as sensitivity (95.40%), specificity (78.69%), positive predictive value (48.54%), negative predictive value (98.78%) and accuracy (81.60%) are concerned. With respect to the categorical variables (BI-RADS categories 3, 4 and 5), the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 94.41 for SONOBREAST (range 92.20–96.62) and 89.99 for BI-RADS (range 86.60–93.37).


      The accuracy of the SONOBREAST model is identical to that found with BI-RADS when the same parameters are used with respect to the cut-off point at which malignancy is suspected. Regarding the continuous probability of malignancy with BI-RADS categories 3, 4 and 5, SONOBREAST permits a more precise and individualized evaluation.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Freitas-Junior R.
        • Gonzaga C.M.
        • Freitas N.M.
        • et al.
        Disparities in female breast cancer mortality rates in Brazil between 1980 and 2009.
        Clinics. 2012; 67: 731-737
        • Gonzaga C.M.R.
        • Freitas-Junior R.
        • Curado M.P.
        • Sousa A.L.L.
        • Souza-Neto J.A.
        • Souza M.R.
        Temporal trends in female breast cancer mortality in Brazil and correlations with social inequalities: ecological time-series study.
        BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 96
        • Paulinelli R.R.
        • Freitas-Júnior R.
        • Moreira M.A.
        • et al.
        Risk of malignancy in solid breast nodules according to their sonographic features.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2005; 24: 635-641
        • Nastri C.O.
        • Martins W.P.
        • Lenharte R.J.
        Ultrasonography in breast cancer screening.
        Femina. 2011; 39: 97-102
        • Paulinelli R.R.
        • Freitas-Junior R.
        • de Lucena C.E.
        • et al.
        Sonobreast: predicting individualized probabilities of malignancy in solid breast masses with echographic expression.
        Breast J. 2011; 17: 152-159
        • Thittai A.K.
        • Yamal J.M.
        • Ophir J.
        Small breast lesion classification performance using the normalized axial-shear strain area feature.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013; 39: 543-548
        • Tamaki K.
        • Tamaki N.
        • Kamada Y.
        • et al.
        A non-invasive modality: the US virtual touch tissue quantification (VTTQ) for evaluation of breast cancer.
        Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013; 43: 889-895
        • Wojcinski S.
        • Boehme E.
        • Farrokh A.
        • et al.
        Ultrasound real-time elastography can predict malignancy in BI-RADS®-US 3 lesions.
        BMC Cancer. 2013; 13: 159
        • American College of Radiology
        Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS).
        American College of Radiology, Reston, VA1993
        • American College of Radiology
        Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Ultrasound (BIRADS-Ultrasound).
        American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2003
        • Paulinelli R.R.
        • Calas M.J.
        • Freitas-Júnior R.
        BIRADS® and breast ultrasonography – a critical analysis.
        Femina. 2007; 35: 565-572
        • Landis J.R.
        • Koch G.G.
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • Levy L.
        • Suissa M.
        • Chiche J.F.
        • et al.
        BIRADS ultrasonography.
        Eur J Radiol. 2007; 61: 202-211
        • Camargo-Júnior H.S.
        BI-RADS™-ultrasound: advantages and drawbacks of this new work tool.
        Radiol Bras. 2005; 38: 301-303
        • Nothacker M.
        • Duda V.
        • Hahn M.
        • et al.
        Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review.
        BMC Cancer. 2009; 9: 335
        • Torres-Tabanera M.
        • Cárdenas-Rebollo J.M.
        • Villar-Castaño P.
        • et al.
        Analysis of the positive predictive value of the subcategories of BI-RADS® 4 lesions: preliminary results in 880 lesions.
        Radiología. 2012; 54: 520-531
        • Mendelson E.B.
        • Bohm-Vélez M.
        • Berg W.A.
        • et al.
        ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound.
        ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • Nascimento J.H.
        • Silva V.D.
        • Maciel A.C.
        Accuracy of sonographic findings in breast cancer: correlation between BI-RADS® categories and histological findings.
        Radiol Bras. 2009; 42: 235-240
        • Pereira F.P.
        Sonographic BI-RADS®: analysis of initial results.
        Radiol Bras. 2009; 42: VII-VIII
        • Lee H.C.
        • Dershaw D.
        • Kopans D.
        • et al.
        Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer.
        J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7: 18-27
        • Pace L.E.
        • He Y.
        • Keating N.L.
        Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.
        Cancer. 2013; 119: 2518-2523
        • Freitas-Junior R.
        • Freitas N.M.
        • Curado M.P.
        • et al.
        Variations in breast cancer incidence per decade of life (Goiania, GO, Brazil): 16-year analysis.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2008; 19: 681-687
        • Freedman R.A.
        • Partridge A.H.
        Management of breast cancer in very young women.
        Breast. 2013; 22: S176-S179
        • Antoniou A.C.
        • Beesley J.
        • McGuffog L.
        • et al.
        Common breast cancer susceptibility alleles and the risk of breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: implications for risk prediction.
        Cancer Res. 2010; 70: 9742-9754
        • Pilato B.
        • De Summa S.
        • Danza K.
        • et al.
        Genetic risk transmission in a family affected by familial breast cancer.
        J Hum Genet. 2014; 59: 51-53
        • Latif A.
        • Hadfield K.D.
        • Roberts S.A.
        • et al.
        Breast cancer susceptibility variants alter risks in familial disease.
        J Med Genet. 2010; 47: 126-131
        • Hosmer D.W.
        • Lemeshow S.
        Applied logistic regression.
        2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York1989