OBJECTIVE: BI-RADS for mammography and ultrasound subdivides category 4 assessments by likelihood of malignancy into categories 4A (> 2% to ≤ 10%), 4B (> 10% to ≤ 50%), and 4C (> 50% to < 95%). Category 4 is not subdivided for breast MRI because of a paucity of data. The purpose of the present study is to determine the utility of categories 4A, 4B, and 4C for MRI by calculating their positive predictive values (PPVs) and comparing them with BI-RADS-specified rates of malignancy for mammography and ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All screening breast MRI examinations performed from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2013, were included in this study. We identified in medical records prospectively assigned MRI BI-RADS categories, including category 4 subdivisions, which are used routinely in our practice. Benign versus malignant outcomes were determined by pathologic analysis, findings from 12 months or more clinical or imaging follow-up, or a combination of these methods. Distribution of BI-RADS categories and positive predictive value level 2 (PPV2; based on recommendation for tissue diagnosis) for categories 4 (including its subdivisions) and 5 were calculated. RESULTS: Of 860 screening breast MRI examinations performed for 566 women (mean age, 47 years), 82 with a BI-RADS category 4 assessment were identified. A total of 18 malignancies were found among 84 category 4 and 5 assessments, for an overall PPV2 of 21.4% (18/84). For category 4 subdivisions, PPV2s were as follows: for category 4A, 2.5% (1/40); for category 4B, 27.6% (8/29); for category 4C, 83.3% (5/6); and for category 4 (not otherwise specified), 28.6% (2/7). CONCLUSION: Category 4 subdivisions for MRI yielded malignancy rates within BI-RADS-specified ranges, supporting their use for benefits to patient care and more meaningful practice audits.
OBJECTIVE: BI-RADS for mammography and ultrasound subdivides category 4 assessments by likelihood of malignancy into categories 4A (> 2% to ≤ 10%), 4B (> 10% to ≤ 50%), and 4C (> 50% to < 95%). Category 4 is not subdivided for breast MRI because of a paucity of data. The purpose of the present study is to determine the utility of categories 4A, 4B, and 4C for MRI by calculating their positive predictive values (PPVs) and comparing them with BI-RADS-specified rates of malignancy for mammography and ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All screening breast MRI examinations performed from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2013, were included in this study. We identified in medical records prospectively assigned MRI BI-RADS categories, including category 4 subdivisions, which are used routinely in our practice. Benign versus malignant outcomes were determined by pathologic analysis, findings from 12 months or more clinical or imaging follow-up, or a combination of these methods. Distribution of BI-RADS categories and positive predictive value level 2 (PPV2; based on recommendation for tissue diagnosis) for categories 4 (including its subdivisions) and 5 were calculated. RESULTS: Of 860 screening breast MRI examinations performed for 566 women (mean age, 47 years), 82 with a BI-RADS category 4 assessment were identified. A total of 18 malignancies were found among 84 category 4 and 5 assessments, for an overall PPV2 of 21.4% (18/84). For category 4 subdivisions, PPV2s were as follows: for category 4A, 2.5% (1/40); for category 4B, 27.6% (8/29); for category 4C, 83.3% (5/6); and for category 4 (not otherwise specified), 28.6% (2/7). CONCLUSION: Category 4 subdivisions for MRI yielded malignancy rates within BI-RADS-specified ranges, supporting their use for benefits to patient care and more meaningful practice audits.
Authors: Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: João Ricardo Maltez de Almeida; André Boechat Gomes; Thomas Pitangueira Barros; Paulo Eduardo Fahel; Mário de Seixas Rocha Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David V Schacht; Ken Yamaguchi; Jessica Lai; Kirti Kulkarni; Charlene A Sennett; Hiroyuki Abe Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Roberta M Strigel; Jennifer Rollenhagen; Elizabeth S Burnside; Mai Elezaby; Amy M Fowler; Frederick Kelcz; Lonie Salkowski; Wendy B DeMartini Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Bethany L Niell; Sara C Gavenonis; Tina Motazedi; Jessica Cott Chubiz; Elkan P Halpern; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Janie M Lee Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Janie M Lee; Wendy B DeMartini; Daniel S Hippe; Mara H Rendi; Grace Kalish; Peggy Porter; Julie Gralow; Savannah C Partridge Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Amanda Ling Fung Liew; Hollie Mei Yeen Lim; Elizabeth Chun Mei Fok; Siu Cheng Loke; Ern Yu Tan; Bee Kiang Chong; Yeong Shyan Lee; Patrick Mun Yew Chan; Niketa Chotai Journal: Breast J Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 2.269
Authors: Paola Clauser; Barbara Krug; Hubert Bickel; Matthias Dietzel; Katja Pinker; Victor-Frederic Neuhaus; Maria Adele Marino; Marco Moschetta; Nicoletta Troiano; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Andrea C Radick; Lisa M Reisch; Hannah L Shucard; Michael W Piepkorn; Kathleen F Kerr; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Stevan R Knezevich; Natalia Oster; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2020-11-06 Impact factor: 1.458