Literature DB >> 15243715

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.

Harmine M Zonderland1, Thomas L Pope, Arend J Nieborg.   

Abstract

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of mammography and US in our hospital, based upon the positive predictive value (PPV) for breast cancer of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) final assessment categories, has been performed. A follow-up study of 2,762 mammograms was performed, along with 955 diagnostic exams and 1,807 screening exams. Additional US was performed in 655 patients (23.7%). The combined reports were assigned a BI-RADS category. Follow-up was obtained by pathologic examination, mammography at 12 months or from PALGA, a nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology. Overall sensitivity was 85% (specificity 98.7%); sensitivity of the diagnostic examinations was 92.9% (specificity 97.7%) and of the screening examinations 69.2% (specificity 99.2%). The PPV of BI-RADS 1 was 5 of 1,542 (0.3%), and of BI-RADS 2, it was 6 of 935 (0.6%). BI-RADS 3 was 6 of 154 (3.9%), BI-RADS 4 was 39 of 74 (52.7%) and BI-RADS 5 was 57 of 57 (100%). The difference between BI-RADS 1 and 2 vs. BI-RADS 3 was statistically significant (P<0.01). Analysis of BI-RADS 3 cases revealed inconsistencies in its assignment. Evaluation of the BI-RADS final assessment categories enables a valid analysis of the diagnostic performance of mammography and US and reveals tools to improve future outcomes. Copyright 2004 Springer-Verlag

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15243715     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2373-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  20 in total

1.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS).

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Jennifer H Menell
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Coding mammograms using the classification "probably benign finding--short interval follow-up suggested".

Authors:  L S Caplan; D Blackman; M Nadel; D L Monticciolo
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy.

Authors:  S G Orel; N Kay; C Reynolds; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined.

Authors:  Rita E Sohlich; Edward A Sickles; Elizabeth S Burnside; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up.

Authors:  Eric L Rosen; Jay A Baker; Mary Scott Soo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  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?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Carl J D'Orsi; Valerie P Jackson; Lawrence W Bassett; Craig A Beam; Rebecca S Lewis; Philip E Crewson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms.

Authors:  Constance Lehman; Sarah Holt; Susan Peacock; Emily White; Nicole Urban
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.

Authors:  L Liberman; A F Abramson; F B Squires; J R Glassman; E A Morris; D D Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer.

Authors:  L E Duijm; G L Guit; J O Zaat; A R Koomen; D Willebrand
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  16 in total

1.  External validation of a publicly available computer assisted diagnostic tool for mammographic mass lesions with two high prevalence research datasets.

Authors:  Matthias Benndorf; Elizabeth S Burnside; Christoph Herda; Mathias Langer; Elmar Kotter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.071

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

Authors:  K Taylor; P Britton; S O'Keeffe; M G Wallis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Clinical impact of the use of additional ultrasonography in diagnostic breast imaging.

Authors:  Luc D B Vercauteren; Alphons G H Kessels; Trudy van der Weijden; Dick Koster; Johan L Severens; Jos M A van Engelshoven; Karin Flobbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  BI-RADS categorisation of 2,708 consecutive nonpalpable breast lesions in patients referred to a dedicated breast care unit.

Authors:  A-S Hamy; S Giacchetti; M Albiter; C de Bazelaire; C Cuvier; F Perret; S Bonfils; P Charvériat; H Hocini; A de Roquancourt; M Espie
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-07-16       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  The mammographic density of a mass is a significant predictor of breast cancer.

Authors:  Ryan W Woods; Gale S Sisney; Lonie R Salkowski; Kazuhiko Shinki; Yunzhi Lin; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  The correlation of mammographic-and histologic patterns of breast cancers in BRCA1 gene mutation carriers, compared to age-matched sporadic controls.

Authors:  R Kaas; R Kroger; J L Peterse; A A M Hart; S H Muller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-08-19       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Breast cancer risk prediction model: a nomogram based on common mammographic screening findings.

Authors:  J M H Timmers; A L M Verbeek; J IntHout; R M Pijnappel; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Appearance of breast masses on sonoelastography with special focus on the diagnosis of fibroadenomas.

Authors:  Eduardo F C Fleury; Jose F Rinaldi; Sebastiao Piato; Jose Carlos V Fleury; Decio Roveda Junior
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-01-22       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Performance of diagnostic mammography differs in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Allan Jensen; Berta M Geller; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Robert D Rosenberg; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.