Literature DB >> 11818625

Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.

Berta M Geller1, William E Barlow, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Virginia L Ernster, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Edward A Sickles, Patricia A Carney, Mark B Dignan, Robert D Rosenberg, Nicole Urban, Yingye Zheng, Stephen H Taplin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine whether mammographic assessments and recommendations are linked as expected, based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), for the evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight mammography registries from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium contributed mammographic data from 1996 through 1997 for women 25 years of age or older, with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. The association of assessments and recommendations and the relationship of self-reported symptoms to assessments are described.
RESULTS: A total of 51,673 diagnostic mammograms were included in the analyses and the expected management recommendation was provided 85%-90% of the time for mammograms classified as assessment categories 1, 2, 4, or 5. Category 3 ("probably benign finding") had the most variability in associated management recommendations, with only 40% (2,998 of 7,423) of cases associated with the recommendation for short interval follow-up. Of the 1,648 category 0 mammograms ("needs additional imaging") that did not have a final assessment, 64% were recommended for additional imaging, while another 20% of the cases were recommended for either a consultation or biopsy. The number of women who reported a lump as a symptom decreased with age but was associated with higher BI-RADS assessments.
CONCLUSION: BI-RADS assessment categories were generally used as intended for all categories but 0 and 3. Additional education about the use of these categories may be warranted. The inconsistencies between assessment category and management recommendations may present difficulties in conducting outcome audits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11818625     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2222010620

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


  26 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  [Evaluation of the results after using of the BI-RADS categories in 1,777 clinical mammograms].

Authors:  E A Hauth; K Khan; B Wolfgarten; A Betzler; R Kimmig; M Forsting
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  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

5.  Clinico-pathological Correlation of Thyroid Nodule Ultrasound and Cytology Using the TIRADS and Bethesda Classifications.

Authors:  R M Singaporewalla; J Hwee; T U Lang; V Desai
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Assessing Inaccuracies in Automated Information Extraction of Breast Imaging Findings.

Authors:  Ronilda Lacson; Martha E Goodrich; Kimberly Harris; Phyllis Brawarsky; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

7.  Breast MRI BI-RADS assessments and abnormal interpretation rates by clinical indication in US community practices.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Laura Ichikawa; Michele C Rochelle; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Karen J Wernli; Bonnie N Joe; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Optimal Policies for Reducing Unnecessary Follow-up Mammography Exams in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Decis Anal       Date:  2013-09

9.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Edward A Sickles; Lawrence W Bassett; Daniel L Rubin; Carol H Lee; Debra M Ikeda; Ellen B Mendelson; Pamela A Wilcox; Priscilla F Butler; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.532

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.