OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to report the results of classification of sonographic findings according to BI-RADS and to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) for each BI-RADS assessment category. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively classified 4,668 breast sonograms according to BI-RADS final assessment category. Suspicious sonographic findings were divided into major and minor suspicious findings. Category 1 was normal and category 2 was a benign finding such as cyst or nodule with uniform and intense hyperechogenicity. A nodule neither category 2 nor category 4 or 5 was defined as category 3. A nodule with one or more suspicious findings, not category 5, was defined as category 4. A nodule with two or more major suspicious findings was defined as category 5. RESULTS: Of the 4,668 cases, 321 cases failed to undergo follow-up of at least 1 year. The PPV was 0.1% in category 1 (3/2,191), 0% in category 2 (0/773), 0.8% in category 3 (6/737), 31.1% in category 4 (161/519), and 96.9% in category 5 (123/127). In palpable lesions (n = 751), the PPV was 2.2% in category 1 (2/93), 0.9% in category 3 (2/217), 54% in category 4 (107/198), and 98% in category 5 (98/100). In nonpalpable lesions (n = 3,596), the PPV was 0.05% in category 1 (1/2,098), 0.8% in category 3 (4/520), 16.8% in category 4 (54/321), and 92.6% in category 5 (25/27). CONCLUSION: As with mammography, placing sonographic lesions into BI-RADS categories is useful for predicting the presence of malignancy.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to report the results of classification of sonographic findings according to BI-RADS and to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) for each BI-RADS assessment category. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively classified 4,668 breast sonograms according to BI-RADS final assessment category. Suspicious sonographic findings were divided into major and minor suspicious findings. Category 1 was normal and category 2 was a benign finding such as cyst or nodule with uniform and intense hyperechogenicity. A nodule neither category 2 nor category 4 or 5 was defined as category 3. A nodule with one or more suspicious findings, not category 5, was defined as category 4. A nodule with two or more major suspicious findings was defined as category 5. RESULTS: Of the 4,668 cases, 321 cases failed to undergo follow-up of at least 1 year. The PPV was 0.1% in category 1 (3/2,191), 0% in category 2 (0/773), 0.8% in category 3 (6/737), 31.1% in category 4 (161/519), and 96.9% in category 5 (123/127). In palpable lesions (n = 751), the PPV was 2.2% in category 1 (2/93), 0.9% in category 3 (2/217), 54% in category 4 (107/198), and 98% in category 5 (98/100). In nonpalpable lesions (n = 3,596), the PPV was 0.05% in category 1 (1/2,098), 0.8% in category 3 (4/520), 16.8% in category 4 (54/321), and 92.6% in category 5 (25/27). CONCLUSION: As with mammography, placing sonographic lesions into BI-RADS categories is useful for predicting the presence of malignancy.
Authors: A Thomas Stavros; Andrea G Freitas; Giselle G N deMello; Lora Barke; Dennis McDonald; Terese Kaske; Ducly Wolverton; Arnold Honick; Daniela Stanzani; Adriana H Padovan; Ana Paula C Moura; Marilia C V de Campos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315