Literature DB >> 22011830

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

K Taylor1, P Britton, S O'Keeffe, M G Wallis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The UK 5-point breast imaging scoring system, recently formalised by the Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group, does not specify the likelihood of malignancy in each category. The breast imaging and reporting data system (BI-RADS) is widely used throughout North America and much of Europe. The main purpose of this study is to quantify the cancer likelihood of each of the UK 5-point categories and map them to comparable BI-RADS categories to facilitate comparison with North American and European literature and publication of UK research abroad.
METHODS: During the 8 year study period, mammogram and ultrasound results were UK scored and the percentage of cancer outcomes within each group calculated. These were then compared with the percentage incidence of the BI-RADS categories.
RESULTS: Of 23 741 separate assessment episodes, 15 288 mammograms and 10 642 ultrasound examinations were evaluated. There was a direct correlation between UK scoring and BI-RADS for categories 1 and 5. UK Score 2 lipomas and simple cysts correlated with BI-RADS 2, with the remaining UK Score 2 lesions (mostly fibroadenomas) assigned to BI-RADS 3. BI-RADS 4 incorporates a wide range of cancer risk (2-95%) with subdivisions a, b and c indicating increasing, but unspecified, likelihood of malignancy. UK Score 3 correlated with BI-RADS 4 a/b and UK Score 4 corresponded with BI-RADS 4c.
CONCLUSION: This study quantifies the cancer likelihood of the UK scoring and maps them to parallel BI-RADS categories, with equivalent cancer risks. This facilitates the ability to share UK research data and clinical practice on an international scale.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22011830      PMCID: PMC3473699          DOI: 10.1259/bjr/48490964

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  11 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  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

3.  Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon.

Authors:  Melania Costantini; Paolo Belli; Roberta Lombardi; Gianluca Franceschini; Antonino Mulè; Lorenzo Bonomo
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.153

4.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography.

Authors:  Eun-Kyung Kim; Kyung Hee Ko; Ki Keun Oh; Jin Young Kwak; Jai Kyung You; Min Jung Kim; Byoung-Woo Park
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Ashwini Kshirsagar; Sandra Stapleton; Kari Young; Ronald A Castellino
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions.

Authors:  A T Stavros; D Thickman; C L Rapp; M A Dennis; S H Parker; G A Sisney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.

Authors:  Niamh M Hambly; Michelle M McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Gormlaith C Hargaden; Ann O'Doherty; Fidelma L Flanagan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Solveig Hofvind; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification.

Authors:  A J Maxwell; N T Ridley; G Rubin; M G Wallis; F J Gilbert; M J Michell
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  14 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  A review of the PERFORMS scheme in breast screening.

Authors:  Alastair Gale; Yan Chen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-06-12       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  The role of the breast radiologist in evaluation of breast incidentalomas detected on 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT.

Authors:  R M Dunne; D O'Mahony; G Wilson; R McDermott; S A O'Keeffe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Predictive factors for invasive cancer in surgical specimens following an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in microcalcification-only lesions.

Authors:  Hatice Gümüş; Philippa Mills; David Fish; Metehan Gümüş; Karina Cox; Haresh Devalia; Sue Jones; Peter Jones; Ali R Sever
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2016 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.630

6.  Breast microcalcifications: the UK RCR 5-point breast imaging system or BI-RADS; which is the better predictor of malignancy?

Authors:  Linda Metaxa; Nuala A Healy; Sylvia A O'Keeffe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Can mammogram readers swiftly and effectively learn to interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, a type of abbreviated breast MRI?: a single centre data-interpretation study.

Authors:  Lyn I Jones; Rebecca Geach; Sam A Harding; Christopher Foy; Victoria Taylor; Andrea Marshall; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Janet A Dunn
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Recognising the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an opportunity to target improvement.

Authors:  C O'Donoghue; L Esserman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 9.  A Review on Automatic Mammographic Density and Parenchymal Segmentation.

Authors:  Wenda He; Arne Juette; Erika R E Denton; Arnau Oliver; Robert Martí; Reyer Zwiggelaar
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2015-06-11

10.  The Values of Combined and Sub-Stratified Imaging Scores with Ultrasonography and Mammography in Breast Cancer Subtypes.

Authors:  Tsun-Hou Chang; Hsian-He Hsu; Yu-Ching Chou; Jyh-Cherng Yu; Giu-Cheng Hsu; Guo-Shu Huang; Guo-Shiou Liao
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.