OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the BI-RADS as a predictive factor of suspicion for malignancy in breast lesions by correlating radiological with histological results and calculating the positive predictive value for categories 3, 4 and 5 in a breast cancer reference center in the city of São Paulo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, analytical and cross-sectional study including 725 patients with mammographic and/or sonographic findings classified as BI-RADS categories 3, 4 and 5 who were referred to the authors' institution to undergo percutaneous biopsy. The tests results were reviewed and the positive predictive value was calculated by means of a specific mathematical equation. RESULTS: Positive predictive values found for categories 3, 4 and 5 were respectively the following: 0.74%, 33.08% and 92.95%, for cases submitted to ultrasound-guided biopsy, and 0.00%, 14.90% and 100% for cases submitted to stereotactic biopsy. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated high suspicion for malignancy in lesions classified as category 5 and low risk for category 3. As regards category 4, the need for systematic biopsies was observed.

Keywords: Breast cancer; BI-RADS; Percutaneous biopsy; Positive predictive value; Histological diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of diagnostic underestimation at stereotactic percutaneous core needle biopsies (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABB) of nonpalpable breast lesions, with histopathological results of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) subsequently submitted to surgical excision. As a secondary objective, the frequency of ADH and DCIS was determined for the cases submitted to biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 40 cases with diagnosis of ADH or DCIS on the basis of biopsies performed between February 2011 and July 2013, subsequently submitted to surgery, whose histopathological reports were available in the internal information system. Biopsy results were compared with those observed at surgery and the underestimation rate was calculated by means of specific mathematical equations. RESULTS: The underestimation rate at CNB was 50% for ADH and 28.57% for DCIS, and at VABB it was 25% for ADH and 14.28% for DCIS. ADH represented 10.25% of all cases undergoing biopsy, whereas DCIS accounted for 23.91%. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic underestimation rate at CNB is two times the rate at VABB. Certainty that the target has been achieved is not the sole determining factor for a reliable diagnosis. Removal of more than 50% of the target lesion should further reduce the risk of underestimation.

Keywords: Breast neoplasia; Core needle biopsy; Vacuum-assisted biopsy; Diagnostic techniques and procedures; Noninvasive intraductal carcinoma.