Quantification of the UK 5-point breast imaging classification and mapping to BI-RADS to facilitate comparison with international literature

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 84, Issue 1007, 2011, Pages 1005-1010

  Taylor, Kathryn ^a   Britton, P ^a   O'Keeffe, S ^a   Wallis, M G ^a  

^a CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AXILLARY LYMPH NODE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; BREAST FIBROADENOMA; BREAST IMAGING AND REPORTING DATA SYSTEM; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURGERY; CANCER SUSCEPTIBILITY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CYST; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIPOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMARY GLAND; MAMMOGRAPHY; SCORING SYSTEM; UK 5 POINT BREAST IMAGING CLASSIFICATION;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROBABILITY; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 80054769991     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/48490964     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Maxwell AJ, Ridley NT, Rubin G, Wallis MG, Gilbert FJ, Michell MJ. The Royal College Of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification. Clin Rad 2009;64:624-7.
2. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) atlas, 4th edn. Reston, VA: American College Of Radiology; 2003.
3. Stavros T, Thickman D, Rapp C, Dennis M, Parker S, Sisney G. Solid breast nodules: Use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:123-34.
4. Lazarus E, Mainiero M, Schepps B, Koelliker S, Livingston L. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239: 385-91.
5. Guidance on screening and symptomatic breast imaging, 4th edn. London, UK: The Royal College Of Radiologists 2003.
6. Guidelines for the management of symptomatic breast disease ESJO 31: S1-S21. London, UK: The Association Of Breast Surgery (BASO) 2005.
7. Zonderland H, Pope TL, 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;14:1743-50. (Pubitemid 39386620)
8. Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, Franceschini G, Mule A, Bonomo L. Characterization of solid breast masses: Use of the sonographic breast imaging and reporting data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med 2006;25:649-59.
9. Kim EK, Ko KH, Oh KK, Kwak JY, You JK, Kim MJ, et al. Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:1209-15.
10. Hofyind S, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Skaane P. Screen detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population based screening program. Radiology 2009;253:652-660.
11. Skaane p, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomised trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: Follow up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007;244:708-17.
12. Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, Young K, Castellino RA. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188: 377-84. (Pubitemid 46167738)
13. Hambly N, McNicholas M, Phelan N, Hargaden G, O'Doherty A, Flanagan F. Comparison of digital mammography and screen film mammography in breast cancer screening: A review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:1010-18.
14. 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. (Pubitemid 30346755)