Utility of BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions for Screening Breast MRI

被引:43
|
作者
Strigel, Roberta M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Burnside, Elizabeth S. [1 ,3 ]
Elezaby, Mai [1 ]
Fowler, Amy M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Kelcz, Frederick [1 ]
Salkowski, Lonie R. [1 ]
DeMartini, Wendy B. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Radiol, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, Dept Med Phys, 1530 Med Sci Ctr, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin, Carbone Canc Ctr, Madison, WI USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
BI-RADS category 4; breast MRI; POSITIVE PREDICTIVE-VALUE; PERSONAL HISTORY; CANCER; MICROCALCIFICATION; MAMMOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.16.16730
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:1392 / 1399
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Understanding BI-RADS Category 3
    Fazeli, Soudabeh
    Stepenosky, James
    Guirguis, Mary S.
    Adrada, Beatriz
    Rakow-Penner, Rebecca
    Ojeda-Fournier, Haydee
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2025, 45 (01)
  • [22] The Utility of the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon in Category 4 Breast Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Study in China
    Gu, Yang
    Tian, Jia-Wei
    Ran, Hai-Tao
    Ren, Wei-Dong
    Chang, Cai
    Yuan, Jian-Jun
    Kang, Chun-Song
    Deng, You-Bin
    Wang, Hui
    Luo, Bao-Ming
    Guo, Sheng-Lan
    Zhou, Qi
    Xue, En-Sheng
    Zhan, Wei-Wei
    Zhou, Qing
    Li, Jie
    Zhou, Ping
    Zhang, Chun-Quan
    Chen, Man
    Gu, Ying
    Xu, Jin-Feng
    Chen, Wu
    Zhang, Yu-Hong
    Wang, Hong-Qiao
    Li, Jian-Chu
    Wang, Hong-Yan
    Jiang, Yu-Xin
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2022, 29 : S26 - S34
  • [23] Benign (BI-RADS 2) lesions in breast MRI
    Spick, C.
    Szolar, D. H. M.
    Tillich, M.
    Reittner, P.
    Preidler, K. W.
    Baltzer, P. A.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2015, 70 (04) : 395 - 399
  • [24] Quantitative Ultrasound Analysis for Classification of BI-RADS Category 3 Breast Masses
    Moon, Woo Kyung
    Lo, Chung-Ming
    Chang, Jung Min
    Huang, Chiun-Sheng
    Chen, Jeon-Hor
    Chang, Ruey-Feng
    JOURNAL OF DIGITAL IMAGING, 2013, 26 (06) : 1091 - 1098
  • [25] Can Ultrasound Elastography Help Better Manage Mammographic BI-RADS Category 4 Breast Lesions?
    Gu, Yang
    Tian, Jiawei
    Ran, Haitao
    Ren, Weidong
    Chang, Cai
    Yuan, Jianjun
    Kang, Chunsong
    Deng, Youbin
    Wang, Hui
    Luo, Baoming
    Guo, Shenglan
    Zhou, Qi
    Xue, Ensheng
    Zhan, Weiwei
    Zhou, Qing
    Li, Jie
    Zhou, Ping
    Zhang, Chunquan
    Chen, Man
    Gu, Ying
    Xu, Jinfeng
    Chen, Wu
    Zhang, Yuhong
    Li, Jianchu
    Wang, Hongyan
    Jiang, Yuxin
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2022, 22 (04) : E407 - E416
  • [26] Significance of Breast Lesion Descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI Lexicon
    Agrawal, Garima
    Su, Min-Ying
    Nalcioglu, Orhan
    Feig, Stephen A.
    Chen, Jeon-Hor
    CANCER, 2009, 115 (07) : 1363 - 1380
  • [27] Can Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prevent Biopsy or Change the Management of BI-RADS® Category 4 Breast Lesions?
    Turnaoglu, Hale
    Ozturk, Emine
    Yucesoy, Cuneyt
    Teber, Mehmet Akif
    Turan, Aynur
    Ozbalci, Aysu Basak
    Seker, Ebru Gaye
    Onal, Binnur
    Hekimoglu, Baki
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2018, 80 (05) : 505 - 512
  • [28] Does power Doppler ultrasonography improve the BI-RADS category assessment and diagnostic accuracy of solid breast lesions?
    Tozaki, Mitsuhiro
    Fukuma, Eisuke
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2011, 52 (07) : 706 - 710
  • [29] Computer-aided evaluation as an adjunct to revised BI-RADS Atlas: improvement in positive predictive value at screening breast MRI
    Gweon, Hye Mi
    Cho, Nariya
    Seo, Mirinae
    Chu, A. Jung
    Moon, Woo Kyung
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (08) : 1800 - 1807
  • [30] Changes in the Utilization of the BI-RADS Category 3 Assessment in Recalled Patients Before and After the Implementation of Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
    Stepanek, Tricia
    Constantinou, Niki
    Marshall, Holly
    Pham, Ramya
    Thompson, Cheryl
    Dubchuk, Christina
    Plecha, Donna
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2019, 26 (11) : 1515 - 1525