Clinical application of the BI-RADS final assessment to breast sonography in conjunction with mammography.

OBJECTIVE The objective of our study was to report the results of classification of sonographic findings according to BI-RADS and to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) for each BI-RADS assessment category. SUBJECTS AND METHODS We prospectively classified 4,668 breast sonograms according to BI-RADS final assessment category. Suspicious sonographic findings were divided into major and minor suspicious findings. Category 1 was normal and category 2 was a benign finding such as cyst or nodule with uniform and intense hyperechogenicity. A nodule neither category 2 nor category 4 or 5 was defined as category 3. A nodule with one or more suspicious findings, not category 5, was defined as category 4. A nodule with two or more major suspicious findings was defined as category 5. RESULTS Of the 4,668 cases, 321 cases failed to undergo follow-up of at least 1 year. The PPV was 0.1% in category 1 (3/2,191), 0% in category 2 (0/773), 0.8% in category 3 (6/737), 31.1% in category 4 (161/519), and 96.9% in category 5 (123/127). In palpable lesions (n = 751), the PPV was 2.2% in category 1 (2/93), 0.9% in category 3 (2/217), 54% in category 4 (107/198), and 98% in category 5 (98/100). In nonpalpable lesions (n = 3,596), the PPV was 0.05% in category 1 (1/2,098), 0.8% in category 3 (4/520), 16.8% in category 4 (54/321), and 92.6% in category 5 (25/27). CONCLUSION As with mammography, placing sonographic lesions into BI-RADS categories is useful for predicting the presence of malignancy.

[1]  Alfons G H Kessels,et al.  The additional diagnostic value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[2]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[3]  L. Bonomo,et al.  Characterization of Solid Breast Masses , 2006, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[4]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations. , 2006, Radiology.

[5]  P. Lertsithichai,et al.  Positive predictive value of breast cancer in the lesions categorized as BI-RADS category 5. , 2006, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet.

[6]  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.

[7]  J. V. van Engelshoven,et al.  The role of ultrasonography as an adjunct to mammography in the detection of breast cancer. a systematic review. , 2002, European journal of cancer.

[8]  T. Helbich,et al.  Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? , 2004, Radiology.

[9]  D. Salas,et al.  Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. , 2001, Radiology.

[10]  Mary Scott Soo,et al.  Breast US: assessment of technical quality and image interpretation. , 2002, Radiology.

[11]  E. Sickles.  Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. , 1991, Radiology.

[12]  M. Helvie,et al.  Palpable breast thickening: role of mammography and US in cancer detection. , 2002, Radiology.

[13]  W. Buchberger,et al.  Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  Pavel Crystal,et al.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. , 1990, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  A. Stavros,et al.  Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. , 2001, Radiology.

[17]  P. Skaane.  The Additional Value of us to Mammography in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer , 1999, Acta radiologica.

[18]  A C Borstlap,et al.  Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound. , 2003, The British journal of radiology.

[19]  J. Baker,et al.  BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

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

[22]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US--diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. , 1998, Radiology.

[23]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. , 2006, Radiology.

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

[25]  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.

[26]  M. Mainiero,et al.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. , 2006, Radiology.

[27]  D. Vanel.  The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[28]  C. Floyd,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  M S Soo,et al.  Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. , 1999, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  Stuart S Kaplan,et al.  Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. , 2001, Radiology.

[31]  B. Yankaskas,et al.  Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. , 2002, Radiology.

[32]  R. Birdwell,et al.  The mammography quality standards act: benefits and burdens. , 2001, Breast disease.

[33]  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.

[34]  Darrell N. Smith,et al.  Sonographic Evaluation of Clinically Palpable Breast Cancers Invisible on Mammography , 2000, The breast journal.

[35]  E A Sickles,et al.  Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: A retrospective review , 1996, Cancer.

[36]  P. Skaane,et al.  Interobserver Variation in the Interpretation of Breast Imaging , 1997, Acta radiologica.

[37]  P Skaane.  Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors. , 1999, Acta radiologica. Supplementum.

[38]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

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

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

[41]  H. Zonderland,et al.  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 , 2004, European Radiology.