Literature DB >> 26995570

A history of breast cancer and older age allow risk stratification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 ratings in the diagnostic setting.

Matthias Benndorf1, Yirong Wu2, Elizabeth S Burnside3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to investigate whether risk stratification of mammographic Breast Imaging: Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3 can be accomplished in the diagnostic setting.
METHODS: We analyzed 4941 BI-RADS-3-rated patients (23 malignant outcomes) and built logistic-regression models with age, personal and family history of breast cancer, fibroglandular density, and additional mammographic findings as predictive variables.
RESULTS: A personal history of breast cancer (odds ratio: 5.53) and older age (odds ratio: 12.44/10.93 for age 50-64/>64) are independent risk factors. Patients with both risk factors have a risk >2%.
CONCLUSION: Biopsy may be warranted in older patients with a history of breast cancer who would be otherwise assigned BI-RADS 3.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BI-RADS; Breast cancer; Mammography; Probably benign; Risk stratification

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26995570      PMCID: PMC4800163          DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.10.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Imaging        ISSN: 0899-7071            Impact factor:   1.605


  21 in total

1.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Yvonne Vergouwe; Patrick Royston; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-05-28

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

Authors:  Berta M Geller; 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
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Laura E Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Virginia L Ernster; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Nicole Urban; Mark B Dignan; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  An introduction to statistical methods used in binary outcome modeling.

Authors:  Brian H Nathanson; Thomas L Higgins
Journal:  Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2008-09

Review 6.  Breast microcalcifications as type descriptors to stratify risk of malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 10665 cases with special focus on round/punctate microcalcifications.

Authors:  M Rominger; C Wisgickl; N Timmesfeld
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2012-08-24

7.  Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.

Authors:  Janet K Baum; Lucy G Hanna; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Mary C Mahoney; Emily F Conant; Lawrence W Bassett; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-04-18       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jesse Davis; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Mary J Lindstrom; Berta M Geller; Benjamin Littenberg; Katherine A Shaffer; Charles E Kahn; C David Page
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  What is the optimal threshold at which to recommend breast biopsy?

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting.

Authors:  Gary S Collins; Joris A de Groot; Susan Dutton; Omar Omar; Milensu Shanyinde; Abdelouahid Tajar; Merryn Voysey; Rose Wharton; Ly-Mee Yu; Karel G Moons; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-03-19       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  4 in total

1.  Does patient age affect the PPV3 of ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound categories 4 and 5 in the diagnostic setting?

Authors:  Yue Hu; Yaping Yang; Ran Gu; Liang Jin; Shiyu Shen; Fengtao Liu; Hongli Wang; Jingsi Mei; Xiaofang Jiang; Qiang Liu; Fengxi Su
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  The use of sequential X-ray, CT and MRI in the preoperative evaluation of breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Huiyu Zhang; Hongna Tan; Jianbo Gao; Yan Wei; Zhan Yu; Yan Zhou
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  A new nomogram for predicting the malignant diagnosis of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasonography category 4A lesions in women with dense breast tissue in the diagnostic setting.

Authors:  Yaping Yang; Yue Hu; Shiyu Shen; Xiaofang Jiang; Ran Gu; Hongli Wang; Fengtao Liu; Jingsi Mei; Jing Liang; Haixia Jia; Qiang Liu; Chang Gong
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-07

Review 4.  BI-RADS 3: Current and Future Use of Probably Benign.

Authors:  Karen A Lee; Nishi Talati; Rebecca Oudsema; Sharon Steinberger; Laurie R Margolies
Journal:  Curr Radiol Rep       Date:  2018-01-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.