Literature DB >> 19414086

The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification.

A J Maxwell1, N T Ridley, G Rubin, M G Wallis, F J Gilbert, M J Michell.   

Abstract

Standardisation of the classification of breast imaging reports will improve communication between the referrer and the radiologist and avoid ambiguity, which may otherwise lead to mismanagement of patients. Following wide consultation, the Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group has produced a scoring system for the classification of breast imaging. This will facilitate audit and the development of nationally agreed standards for the investigation of women with breast disease. This five-point system is as follows: 1, normal; 2, benign findings; 3, indeterminate/probably benign findings; 4, findings suspicious of malignancy; 5, findings highly suspicious of malignancy. It is recommended that this be used in the reporting of all breast imaging examinations in the UK.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19414086     DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2009.01.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Radiol        ISSN: 0009-9260            Impact factor:   2.350


  26 in total

1.  Breast MRI at 3.0 T in a high-risk familial breast cancer screening cohort: comparison with 1.5 T screening studies.

Authors:  M D Pickles; L W Turnbull
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  The practical application of the UK 5-point scoring system for breast imaging: how standardisation of reporting supports the multidisciplinary team.

Authors:  L S Wilkinson; N T F Ridley
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  The influence of clinicopathological features on the predictive accuracy of conventional breast imaging in determining the extent of screen-detected high-grade pure ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  L Hayward; R S Oeppen; A V Grima; G T Royle; C M Rubin; R I Cutress
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  Predefined headings in a multiprofessional electronic health record system.

Authors:  Annika Terner; Helena Lindstedt; Karin Sonnander
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  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

6.  The use of ultrasonography and digital mammography in women under 40 years with symptomatic breast cancer: a 7-year Irish experience.

Authors:  C E Redmond; G M Healy; C F Murphy; A O'Doherty; A Foster
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 1.568

7.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic imaging in symptomatic breast patients: team and individual performance.

Authors:  P Britton; J Warwick; M G Wallis; S O'Keeffe; K Taylor; R Sinnatamby; S Barter; M Gaskarth; S W Duffy; G C Wishart
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings.

Authors:  G J Bansal; P Young
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Imaging overview of metaplastic carcinomas of the breast: a large study of 71 cases.

Authors:  Fiona Langlands; Eleanor Cornford; Emad Rakha; Barbara Dall; Eleanor Gutteridge; David Dodwell; Abeer M Shaaban; Nisha Sharma
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Randomized controlled trial of stereotactic 11-G vacuum-assisted core biopsy for the diagnosis and management of mammographic microcalcification.

Authors:  Sara M Bundred; Anthony J Maxwell; Julie Morris; Yit Y Lim; Md Janick Harake; Sigrid Whiteside; Nigel J Bundred
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.