Positive predictive value of breast cancer in the lesions categorized as BI-RADS category 5

Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand

Volumn 89, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1253-1259

  Wiratkapun, Cholatip ^a   Lertsithichai, Panuwat ^a   Wibulpholprasert, Bussanee ^a  

^a MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

Author keywords

BI RADS category 5; Breast cancer

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BREAST CANCER; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGIC SKIN REACTION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; REVIEW; ULTRASOUND;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 33748488870     PISSN: 01252208     EISSN: 01252208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
2. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999; 211: 845-50.
3. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1260-5.
4. Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB. Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 189: 34-40.
5. Tan YY, Wee SB, Tan MP, Chong BK. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization in an Asian population. Asian J Surg 2004; 27: 186-91.
6. Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, Ernster VL, Yankaskas BC, Sickles EA, et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002; 222: 536-42.
7. Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S, White E, Urban N. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 15-20.
8. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1769-77.
9. Feig SA. Current status of screening US. In: Feig SA, editor. Categorical course in diagnostic radiology: breast imaging. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America; 2005: 143-54.
10. Fu KL, Fu YS, Bassett LW, Cardall SY, Lopez JK. Invasive malignancies. In: Bassett LW, Jackson VP, Fu KL, Fu YS, editors. Diagnosis of diseases of the breast. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2005: 483-517.
11. Stavros AT. Ultrasound of solid breast nodules: distinguishing benign from malignant. In: Stavros AT, editor. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004: 445-527.
12. Stavros AT. Malignant solid breast nodules: specific types. In: Stavros AT, editor. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004: 597-688.
13. Stavros AT. Introduction to breast ultrasound. In: Stavros AT, editor. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004: 1-15.
14. Stavros AT, Rapp CL, Kaske TI, Parker SH. Hard and soft sonographic findings of malignancy. In: Feig SA, editor. Categorical course in diagnostic radiology: breast imaging. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America; 2005: 125-42.
15. Hirunpat S, Tanomkiat W, Khojarern R, Arpakupakul N. Accuracy of the mammographic report category according to BIRADS. J Med Assoc Thai 2005; 88: 62-5.
16. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 35-40.