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

Evaluation of the diagnostic performance of mammography and US in our hospital, based upon the positive predictive value (PPV) for breast cancer of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) final assessment categories, has been performed. A follow-up study of 2,762 mammograms was performed, along with 955 diagnostic exams and 1,807 screening exams. Additional US was performed in 655 patients (23.7%). The combined reports were assigned a BI-RADS category. Follow-up was obtained by pathologic examination, mammography at 12 months or from PALGA, a nationwide network and registry of histo- and cytopathology. Overall sensitivity was 85% (specificity 98.7%); sensitivity of the diagnostic examinations was 92.9% (specificity 97.7%) and of the screening examinations 69.2% (specificity 99.2%). The PPV of BI-RADS 1 was 5 of 1,542 (0.3%), and of BI-RADS 2, it was 6 of 935 (0.6%). BI-RADS 3 was 6 of 154 (3.9%), BI-RADS 4 was 39 of 74 (52.7%) and BI-RADS 5 was 57 of 57 (100%). The difference between BI-RADS 1 and 2 vs. BI-RADS 3 was statistically significant (P<0.01). Analysis of BI-RADS 3 cases revealed inconsistencies in its assignment. Evaluation of the BI-RADS final assessment categories enables a valid analysis of the diagnostic performance of mammography and US and reveals tools to improve future outcomes.

[1]  C. Lehman,et al.  Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. , 2002, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[2]  Emily White,et al.  Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  M. Nadel,et al.  Coding mammograms using the classification "probably benign finding--short interval follow-up suggested". , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  L. Liberman,et al.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  J. Robbins,et al.  Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[6]  E. Sickles,et al.  Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  Mark B Dignan,et al.  Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. , 2002, Radiology.

[8]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography? , 2002, Radiology.

[9]  P. Langenberg,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  D. Kopans.  The positive predictive value of mammography. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. , 1999, Radiology.

[12]  I S Simor,et al.  Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a preliminary report from five centers. , 1986, Radiology.

[13]  C. Merritt,et al.  Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. , 2001, Seminars in roentgenology.

[14]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  E. Burnside,et al.  Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  J. Baker,et al.  Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. , 2002, Radiology.

[17]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom. , 2003, JAMA.

[18]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[19]  B D McCarthy,et al.  Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms. , 1996, American journal of preventive medicine.

[20]  M. Lacquement,et al.  Positive predictive value of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. , 1999, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[21]  S. Orel,et al.  BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. , 1999, Radiology.

[22]  A. R. Koomen,et al.  Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer. , 1997, British Journal of Cancer.

[23]  H. Spjut,et al.  Pathology of the pancreas , 1968 .