Literature DB >> 11818624

Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.

Stephen H Taplin1, Laura E Ichikawa, Karla Kerlikowske, Virginia L Ernster, Robert D Rosenberg, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Patricia A Carney, Berta M Geller, Nicole Urban, Mark B Dignan, William E Barlow, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Edward A Sickles.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine how frequently Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) mammographic screening assessments were associated with expected clinical management recommendations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium mammography registries recorded screening assessments and recommendations in 1997 to identify the proportion of women in each BI-RADS category. The first screening assessment for a woman without cancer or a prior mammogram within 9 months was associated with its independently recorded recommendation.
RESULTS: Among 292,795 women, screening assessments included 269,022 (91.9%) with a "negative" or "benign finding," and 267,103 (99.3%) of these women were recommended for normal interval follow-up. Among 11,861 (4.1%) women with screening assessments of "probably benign finding," 4,782 (40.3%) were recommended for short interval follow-up as expected on the basis of the BI-RADS, but a high proportion (36.9%) were recommended for additional imaging. Among 1,625 (0.6%) women with "suspicious abnormality," most were recommended for biopsy (48.7%) or clinical examination and/or surgical consult (9.0%), but many were recommended for additional imaging (38.7%). Among 243 (0.1%) women with screening assessments "highly suggestive of malignancy," a majority were recommended for biopsy (73.3%) or clinical examination and/or surgical consult (18.1%) consistent with BI-RADS, but some were recommended for additional imaging (6.6%).
CONCLUSION: BI-RADS assessments and management recommendations are consistent for negative and benign assessments, but inconsistencies were found in assessments and recommendations for mammographic abnormalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11818624     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2222010647

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  36 in total

1.  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.

Authors:  Harmine M Zonderland; Thomas L Pope; Arend J Nieborg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-07-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Halladay; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling; Camille Alexander
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: findings from ACRIN 6667.

Authors:  Susan P Weinstein; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell D Schnall; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

Authors:  Laura E Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Melissa L Anderson; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; R James Brenner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions.

Authors:  Mehmet U S Ayvaci; Oguzhan Alagoz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Manuf Serv Oper Manag       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.600

6.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification.

Authors:  S Obenauer; K P Hermann; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-01-26       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Joseph Egger; Patricia A Carney; Gary Cutter; Carl D'Orsi; Edward A Sickles; Jessica Fosse; Linn Abraham; Stephen H Taplin; William Barlow; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Observer Variability of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Lexicon for Mammography.

Authors:  Zehra H Adibelli; Ruken Ergenc; Ozgur Oztekin; Suheyla Ecevit; Gokhan Unal; Yusuf Abal
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  How to improve your breast cancer program: Standardized reporting using the new American College of Radiology Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Judy Q Nguyen
Journal:  Indian J Radiol Imaging       Date:  2009 Oct-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.