The ACR BI-RADS® Experience: Learning From History

Journal of the American College of Radiology

Volumn 6, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 851-860

  Burnside, Elizabeth S ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^b   Bassett, Lawrence W ^c   Rubin, Daniel L ^d   Lee, Carol H ^e   Ikeda, Debra M ^d   Mendelson, Ellen B ^f   Wilcox, Pamela A ^g   Butler, Priscilla F ^g   D'Orsi, Carl J ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^f NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^g AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY   (United States)

^h EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

BI RADS; breast cancer; breast imaging; diagnosis; informatics lexicon; mammography; screening; structured reporting

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; IMAGING SYSTEM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PATIENT CARE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION;

EID: 71549159121     PISSN: 15461440     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.07.023     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. McLelland R. Mammography 1984: challenge to radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 143 (1984) 1-4
2. Galkin B.M., Feig S.A., and Muir H.D. The technical quality of mammography in centers participating in a regional breast cancer awareness program. Radiographics 8 (1988) 133-145
3. Conway B.J., McCrohan J.L., Rueter F.G., and Suleiman O.H. Mammography in the eighties. Radiology 177 (1990) 335-339
4. Scott W. Establishing mammographic criteria for recommending surgical biopsy (1989), American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill
5. McLelland R., Hendrick R.E., Zinninger M.D., and Wilcox P.A. The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 157 (1991) 473-479
6. ® method. Am Fam Physician 55 (1997) 1548-1550 52
7. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of screening and diagnostic mammography. Practice guidelines and technical standards (2008), American College of Radiology, Reston, Va 525-534
8. Fajardo L.L., Hillman B.J., and Frey C. Correlation between breast parenchymal patterns and mammographers' certainty of diagnosis. Invest Radiol 23 (1988) 505-508
9. van Gils C.H., Otten J.D., Verbeek A.L., Hendriks J.H., and Holland R. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health 52 (1998) 267-271
10. Mandelson M.T., Oestreicher N., Porter P.L., et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (2000) 1081-1087
11. Mann B.D., Giuliano A.E., Bassett L.W., Barber M.S., Hallauer W., and Morton D.L. Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer as a result of normal mammograms. Arch Surg 118 (1983) 23-24
12. Hainline S., Myers L., McLelland R., Newell J., Grufferman S., and Shingleton W. Mammographic patterns and risk of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 130 (1978) 1157-1158
13. Carlile T., Kopecky K.J., Thompson D.J., et al. Breast cancer prediction and the Wolfe classification of mammograms. JAMA 254 (1985) 1050-1053
14. Whitehead J., Carlile T., Kopecky K.J., et al. Wolfe mammographic parenchymal patterns. A study of the masking hypothesis of Egan and Mosteller. Cancer 56 (1985) 1280-1286
15. Getty D.J., Pickett R.M., D'Orsi C.J., and Swets J.A. Enhanced interpretation of diagnostic images. Invest Radiol 23 (1988) 240-252
16. Swets J.A., Getty D.J., Pickett R.M., D'Orsi C.J., Seltzer S.E., and McNeil B.J. Enhancing and evaluating diagnostic accuracy. Med Decis Making 11 (1991) 9-18
17. D'Orsi C.J., Getty D.J., Swets J.A., Pickett R.M., Seltzer S.E., and McNeil B.J. Reading and decision aids for improved accuracy and standardization of mammographic diagnosis. Radiology 184 (1992) 619-622
18. Sickles E.A. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179 (1991) 463-468
19. Sickles E.A. The usefulness of computers in managing the operation of a mammography screening practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 155 (1990) 755-761
20. Monticciolo D.L., and Sickles E.A. Computerized follow-up of abnormalities detected at mammography screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 155 (1990) 751-753
21. ®) (1992), American College of Radiology, Reston, Va
22. ®). 2nd ed. (1995), American College of Radiology, Reston, Va
23. ®). 3rd ed. (1998), American College of Radiology, Reston, Va
24. ®). 4th ed. (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston, Va
25. Heilbrunn K.S. The American College of Radiology's mammography lexicon: barking up the wrong tree?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162 (1994) 593-594
26. D'Orsi C.J., and Kopans D.B. The American College of Radiology's mammography lexicon: barking up the only tree. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162 (1994) 595
27. ® decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues. Radiol Clin North Am 45 (2007) 751-763
28. Berg W.A., Arnoldus C.L., Teferra E., and Bhargavan M. Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 221 (2001) 495-503
29. Liberman L., Abramson A.F., Squires F.B., Glassman J.R., Morris E.A., and Dershaw D.D. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171 (1998) 35-40
30. ® 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology 242 (2007) 388-395
31. Lazarus E., Mainiero M.B., Schepps B., Koelliker S.L., and Livingston L.S. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 239 (2006) 385-391
32. Mendelson E.B., Berg W.A., and Merritt C.R. Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. Semin Roentgenol 36 (2001) 217-225
33. Stavros A.T., Thickman D., Rapp C.L., Dennis M.A., Parker S.H., and Sisney G.A. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196 (1995) 123-134
34. Stomper P.C., Herman S., Klippenstein D.L., et al. Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology 197 (1995) 387-395
35. Bassett L.W., Dhaliwal S.G., Eradat J., et al. National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191 (2008) 332-339
36. Ikeda D.M. Progress report from the American College of Radiology Breast MR Imaging Lexicon Committee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin North Am 9 (2001) 295-302
37. Ikeda D.M., Hylton N.M., Kinkel K., et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 13 (2001) 889-895
38. Macura K.J., Ouwerkerk R., Jacobs M.A., and Bluemke D.A. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 26 (2006) 1719-1734
39. Nie K., Chen J.H., Yu H.J., Chu Y., Nalcioglu O., and Su M.Y. Quantitative analysis of lesion morphology and texture features for diagnostic prediction in breast MRI. Acad Radiol 15 (2008) 1513-1525
40. Raza S., Vallejo M., Chikarmane S.A., and Birdwell R.L. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a range of MRI features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191 (2008) 689-699
41. Schnall M.D., Blume J., Bluemke D.A., et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 238 (2006) 42-53
42. Jansen S.A., Fan X., Karczmar G.S., Abe H., Schmidt R.A., and Newstead G.M. Differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions detected by bilateral dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a sensitivity and specificity study. Magn Reson Med 59 (2008) 747-754
43. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244 (2007) 356-378
44. Kuhl C.K. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 244 (2007) 672-691
45. Yabuuchi H., Matsuo Y., Okafuji T., et al. Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging 28 (2008) 1157-1165
46. Osuch J.R., Anthony M., Bassett L.W., et al. A proposal for a national mammography database: content, purpose, and value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164 (1995) 1329-1336
47. Mammography facilities: requirements for accrediting bodies and quality standards and certification requirements-interim rules. Fed Reg 58 (1993) 67558-67572
48. State certification of mammography facilities. Fed Reg 67 (2002) 5446-5469
49. BassettPolit L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., Butler P.F., Carter D., and DeBor M. Quality determinants of mammography. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 13. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0632 (1994), Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Md
50. Nass S.J., and Ball J. Improving breast imaging quality standards (2005), National Academy of Science, Washington, DC
51. Sickles E.A., Philpotts L.E., Parkinson B.T., et al. American College of Radiology/Society of Breast Imaging curriculum for resident and fellow education in breast imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 3 (2006) 879-884
52. Bassett L.W., Monsees B.S., Smith R.A., et al. Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 227 (2003) 862-869
53. Sickles E.A. The American College of Radiology's Mammography Interpretive Skills Assessment (MISA) examination. Semin Breast Dis 6 (2003) 133-140
54. ®) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?. Radiology 224 (2002) 871-880
55. Baker J.A., Kornguth P.J., and Floyd Jr. C.E. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166 (1996) 773-778
56. Houssami N., Boyages J., Stuart K., and Brennan M. Quality of breast imaging reports falls short of recommended standards. Breast 16 (2007) 271-279
57. ® to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 222 (2002) 536-542
58. ® guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (2002) 15-20
59. Taplin S.H., Ichikawa L.E., Kerlikowske K., et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 222 (2002) 529-535
60. ® lexicon reemphasized. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187 (2006) W557
61. ® standardized lexicon. Radiology 196 (1995) 817-822
62. Burnside E.S., Rubin D.L., and Shachter R.D. Using a Bayesian network to predict the probability and type of breast cancer represented by microcalcifications on mammography. Stud Health Technol Inform 107 (2004) 13-17
63. Kahn Jr. C.E., Langlotz C.P., Burnside E.S., et al. Toward best practices in radiology reporting. Radiology 252 (2009) 852-856
64. Langlotz C.P. RadLex: a new method for indexing online educational materials. Radiographics 26 (2006) 1595-1597