Literature DB >> 9930778

Coding mammograms using the classification "probably benign finding--short interval follow-up suggested".

L S Caplan1, D Blackman, M Nadel, D L Monticciolo.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Many benign breast lesions revealed by mammography show features indicating that the lesions have a high, but not complete, likelihood of being benign. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) allows radiologists to classify these mammograms as "probably benign finding-short interval follow-up suggested" (category 3). We explored whether certain factors are associated with the use of category 3 in a national cancer detection program.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, a comprehensive nationwide program that provides cancer screening for low-income and medically underserved women. The study population included all women at least 40 years old who had undergone mammography on or before September 30, 1996 (n = 372,760).
RESULTS: Of the 372,760 mammograms, 7.7% were classified as category 3. The probability of receiving a category 3 classification decreased as patients' ages increased. Women who were symptomatic were nearly twice as likely as women who were asymptomatic to receive a category 3 classification, and women whose clinical breast examinations had abnormal findings were more than twice as likely as women with examinations having normal findings to receive a category 3 classification. The percentage of mammograms classified as category 3 by state or tribal organization ranged from 1.4% to 14.0%.
CONCLUSION: Several patient variables, including patient symptomatology, were associated with the probability of having a mammogram classified as category 3. One of the most important determinants was where the patient underwent mammography, which suggests that variability exists among radiologists themselves in using this BI-RADS code for "probably benign" mammographic lesions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9930778     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.172.2.9930778

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  7 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification.

Authors:  S Obenauer; K P Hermann; E Grabbe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-01-26       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

4.  Recommendation for short-interval follow-up examinations after a probably benign assessment: is clinical practice consistent with BI-RADS guidance?

Authors:  Erin J Aiello Bowles; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Development of an online, publicly accessible naive Bayesian decision support tool for mammographic mass lesions based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS lexicon.

Authors:  Matthias Benndorf; Elmar Kotter; Mathias Langer; Christoph Herda; Yirong Wu; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-01-11       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial.

Authors:  Richard G Barr; Zheng Zhang; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

Authors:  David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.432

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.