Emre Karakaya1, Murathan Erkent1, Hale Turnaoğlu3, Tuğçe Şirinoğlu2, Aydıncan Akdur1, Lara Kavasoğlu1

1Department of General Surgery, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
2Department of Biostatistics, Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
3Department of Radiology, Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey


Objective: The BI-RADS classification system and the Gail Model are the scoring systems that contribute to the diagnosis of breast cancer. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of Gail Model to the diagnosis of breast lesions that were radiologically categorized as BI-RADS 4A.

Material and Methods: We retrospectively examined the medical records of 320 patients between January 2011 and December 2020 whose lesions had been categorized as BI-RADS 4A. Radiological parameters of breast lesions and clinical parameters according to the Gail Model were collected. The relationship between malignant BI-RADS 4A lesions and radiological and clinical parameters was evaluated. In addition, the effect of the Gail Model on diagnosis in malignant BI-RADS 4A lesions was evaluated.

Results: Among radiological features, there were significant differences between lesion size, contour, microcalcification content, echogenicity, and presence of ectasia with respect to the pathological diagnosis (p< 0.05). No significant difference was found between the lesions’ pathological diagnosis and the patients’ Gail score (p> 0.05). An analysis of the features of the Gail model revealed that there was no significant difference between the age of menarche, age at first live birth, presence of a first-degree relative with breast cancer, and a history of breast biopsy and the pathological diagnosis (p> 0.05).

Conclusion: As a conclusion Gail Model does not contribute to the diagnosis of BC, especially in patients with BI-RADS 4A lesions.

Keywords: Breast cancer, breast ultrasonography, breast tumors


Ethics Committee Approval

This study approval was obtained form Başkent University Medicine and Health Sciences Research Committee (Decision No: KA 21/107, Date: 16.03.2021).

Peer Review

Externally peer-reviewed.

Author Contributions

Concept - E.K.; Supervision - A.A.; Materials - H.T.; Data Collection and/or Processing - M.E., L.K.; Analysis and/or Interpretation - T.Ş.; Literature Search - A.A.; Writing Manuscript - E.K.; Critical Reviews - E.K., A.A.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Financial Disclosure

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.