Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 190, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 1209-1215

  Kim, Eun Kyung ^a   Kyung, Hee Ko ^a   Ki, Keun Oh ^a   Jin, Young Kwak ^a   Jai, Kyung You ^a   Min, Jung Kim ^a   Park, Byoung Woo ^a  

^a Yonsei University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

BI RADS; Breast cancer; Mammography; Oncologic imaging; Sonography; Women's imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; TUMOR CLASSIFICATION;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 43649093300     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3259     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:123-134
2. Skaane P. Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors. Acta Radiol Suppl 1999; 420:1-47
3. Skaane P. The additional value of US to mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer: a prospective study. Acta Radiol 1999; 40:486-490
4. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, vande Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999; 213:413-422
5. Flobbe K, Nelemans PJ, Kessels AG, Beets GL, von Meyenfeldt MF, van Engelshoven JM. The role of sonography as an adjunct to mammography in the detection of breast cancer: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2002; 38:1044-1050
6. Flobbe K, Bosch AM, Kessels AG, et al. The additional diagnostic value of sonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163:1194-1199
7. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995; 76:626-630
8. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US - diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998; 207:191-199
9. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR 1999; 173:921-927
10. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221:641-649
11. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:165-175
12. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR 2003; 181:177-182
13. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR 1999; 172:1621-1625
14. Mendelson EB, Berg WA, Merritt CR. Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. Semin Roentgenol 2001; 36: 217-225
15. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS: ultrasound. In: Breast imaging reporting and data system: BI-RADS atlas, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
16. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999:211:845-850
17. 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 1998; 171:35-40
18. 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
19. Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? Radiology 2002; 224:871-880
20. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222:529-535
21. Zonderland HM, Pope TL Jr, Nieborg AJ. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:1743-1750
22. Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, Franceschini G, Mulè A, Bonomo L. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25:649-659
23. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006; 239:385-391
24. American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998
25. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR 1996; 166:773-778
26. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: interand intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR 2000; 174:1769-1777
27. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Quality Mammography Standards. Final rules-21 CFR parts 16 and 900 [docket No. 95N-0192]. RIN 0910-AA24 edition. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, 1997:55,925-55,926
28. Geller BM, Ichikawa LE, Buist DS, et al. Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations. Radiology 2006; 241:67-75
29. Birdwell RL, Wilcox PA. The Mammography Quality Standards Act: benefits and burdens. Breast Dis 2001; 13:97-107
30. Baker JA, Soo MS. Breast US: assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. Radiology 2002; 223:229-238
31. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR 2005; 184:1260-1265
32. Sickles EA. Periodic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468
33. Adler DD, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. AJR 1990; 155:1195-1201
34. Vizcaino I, Gagea L, Andreo L, et al. Screening program working group: short-term follow-up in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219:475-483
35. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004; 233:850-856
36. Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002; 222:536-542
37. Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of a normal mammogram and normal sonogram in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001; 219:186-191
38. Kaiser JS, Helvie MA, Blacklaw RL, Roubidoux MA. Palpable breast thickening: role of mammography and US in cancer detection. Radiology 2002; 223:839-844
39. Durfee SM, Selland DG, Smith DN, Lester SC, Kaelin CM, Meyer JE. Sonographic evaluation of clinically palpable breast cancers invisible on mammography. Breast J 2000; 6:247-251
40. Wiratkapun C, Lertsithichai P, Wibulpholprasert B. Positive predictive value in the lesions categorized as BI-RADS category 5. J Med Assoc Thai 2006; 89:1253-1259
41. Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A. Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging: comparison of mammography, sonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses. Acta Radiol 1997; 38:497-502
42. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, et al. Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:328-331
43. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-preformed whole breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006; 241:355-365