Prithwijit Roychowdhury1, Gopal R Vijayaraghavan1,2, John Roubil1, Imani M Williams1, Efaza Siddiqui2, Srinivasan Vedantham3. 1. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA 01655. 2. Department of Radiology, UMass Memorial Healthcare, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA 01655. 3. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724.
Abstract
Objectives: BI-RADS 3 is an established assessment category in which the probability of malignancy is equal to or less than 2%. However, monitoring adherence to imaging criteria can be challenging and there are few established benchmarks for auditing BI-RADS 3 assignments. In this study, we explore some parameters that could serve as useful tools for quality control and clinical practice management. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study covered a 4-year period (Jan 2014-Dec 2017) and included all women over 40 years who were recalled from a screening exam and had an initial assignment of BI-RADS 3 (probably benign) category after diagnostic workup. A follow-up period of 2 years following the assignment of BI-RADS 3 was used for quantitative quality control metrics. Results: Among 135,765 screening exams, 13,453 were recalled and 1,037 BI-RADS 3 cases met inclusion criteria. The follow-up rate at 24 months was 86.7%. The upgrade rate was 7.4% (77/1,037) [CI: 5.9-9.2%] and the PPV3 was 33.8% (26/77) [CI: 23.4-45.5%]. The cancer yield was 2.51% (26/1,037) [CI: 1.64-3.65%] and did not differ (p=0. 243) from the 2% probability of malignancy. The initial BI-RADS3 per screening exam and per recall from screening were 0.76% (1,037/135,765) [CI: 0.72-0.81%] and 7.7% (1,037/13,453) [CI: 7.26-8.17%], respectively. Conclusion: Regular audit of BIRADS 3 metrics has the potential to provide additional insights for clinical practice management. Data from varied clinical settings with input from an expert committee could help establish benchmarks for these metrics.
Objectives: BI-RADS 3 is an established assessment category in which the probability of malignancy is equal to or less than 2%. However, monitoring adherence to imaging criteria can be challenging and there are few established benchmarks for auditing BI-RADS 3 assignments. In this study, we explore some parameters that could serve as useful tools for quality control and clinical practice management. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study covered a 4-year period (Jan 2014-Dec 2017) and included all women over 40 years who were recalled from a screening exam and had an initial assignment of BI-RADS 3 (probably benign) category after diagnostic workup. A follow-up period of 2 years following the assignment of BI-RADS 3 was used for quantitative quality control metrics. Results: Among 135,765 screening exams, 13,453 were recalled and 1,037 BI-RADS 3 cases met inclusion criteria. The follow-up rate at 24 months was 86.7%. The upgrade rate was 7.4% (77/1,037) [CI: 5.9-9.2%] and the PPV3 was 33.8% (26/77) [CI: 23.4-45.5%]. The cancer yield was 2.51% (26/1,037) [CI: 1.64-3.65%] and did not differ (p=0. 243) from the 2% probability of malignancy. The initial BI-RADS3 per screening exam and per recall from screening were 0.76% (1,037/135,765) [CI: 0.72-0.81%] and 7.7% (1,037/13,453) [CI: 7.26-8.17%], respectively. Conclusion: Regular audit of BIRADS 3 metrics has the potential to provide additional insights for clinical practice management. Data from varied clinical settings with input from an expert committee could help establish benchmarks for these metrics.
Entities:
Keywords:
BI-RADS 3; BI-RADS criteria; breast cancer; mammography; radiology; screening
Authors: Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Bethany L Niell; Phoebe E Freer; Robert Jared Weinfurtner; Elizabeth Kagan Arleo; Jennifer S Drukteinis Journal: Radiol Clin North Am Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 2.303