HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2222010620v1 222/2/536    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Geller, B. M. Articles by Taplin, S. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Geller, B. M. Articles by Taplin, S. H.

Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to Report on the Mammographic Evaluation of Women with Signs and Symptoms of Breast Disease¹

¹ From the Dept of Health Promotion Research, Univ of Vermont, 1 S Prospect St, Burlington, VT 05401-3444 (B.M.G.). Affiliations for all other authors and author contributions are listed at the end of this article. Received March 15, 2001; revision requested April 16; revision received June 18; accepted July 25. Supported by grants U01CA86076 (W.E.B.), U01CA86082 (P.A.C.), U01CA70013 (B.M.G.), U01CA63740 (E.A.S., V.L.E.), U01CA63731 (S.H.T.), U01CA70040 (B.C.Y.), and R01CA63146 (N.U.) from the National Cancer Institute. Address correspondence to B.M.G. (e-mail: bgeller@zoo.uvm.edu).

PURPOSE: To examine whether mammographic assessments and recommendations are linked as expected, based on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), for the evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight mammography registries from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium contributed mammographic data from 1996 through 1997 for women 25 years of age or older, with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. The association of assessments and recommendations and the relationship of self-reported symptoms to assessments are described.

RESULTS: A total of 51,673 diagnostic mammograms were included in the analyses and the expected management recommendation was provided 85%–90% of the time for mammograms classified as assessment categories 1, 2, 4, or 5. Category 3 ("probably benign finding") had the most variability in associated management recommendations, with only 40% (2,998 of 7,423) of cases associated with the recommendation for short interval follow-up. Of the 1,648 category 0 mammograms ("needs additional imaging") that did not have a final assessment, 64% were recommended for additional imaging, while another 20% of the cases were recommended for either a consultation or biopsy. The number of women who reported a lump as a symptom decreased with age but was associated with higher BI-RADS assessments.

CONCLUSION: BI-RADS assessment categories were generally used as intended for all categories but 0 and 3. Additional education about the use of these categories may be warranted. The inconsistencies between assessment category and management recommendations may present difficulties in conducting outcome audits.

Index terms: Breast, ACR Reporting and Data System • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.30 • Breast radiography, quality assurance, 00.11 • Cancer screening, 00.11, 00.30

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Hofvind, P. M. Vacek, J. Skelly, D. L. Weaver, and B. M. Geller Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway J Natl Cancer Inst, August 6, 2008; 100(15): 1082 - 1091. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. J. A. Bowles, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, L. Abraham, P. A. Carney, B. C. Yankaskas, and J. G. Elmore Accuracy of Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammograms by Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1200 - 1208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E.-K. Kim, K. H. Ko, K. K. Oh, J. Y. Kwak, J. K. You, M. J. Kim, and B.-W. Park Clinical Application of the BI-RADS Final Assessment to Breast Sonography in Conjunction with Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1209 - 1215. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. W. Arnold, A. A. T. Bui, C. Morioka, S. El-Saden, and H. Kangarloo Informatics in Radiology: A Prototype Web-based Reporting System for Onsite-Offsite Clinician Communication RadioGraphics, July 1, 2007; 27(4): 1201 - 1211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, K. R. Yabroff, E. A. Sickles, D. S. M. Buist, C. J. Kasales, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, M. B. Dignan, et al. Factors Associated with Imaging and Procedural Events Used to Detect Breast Cancer After Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 385 - 392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Rosenberg, B. C. Yankaskas, L. A. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D. Lehman, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, D. S. M. Buist, D. L. Weaver, et al. Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 55 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. M. Geller, L. E. Ichikawa, D. S. M. Buist, E. A. Sickles, P. A. Carney, B. C. Yankaskas, M. Dignan, K. Kerlikowske, K. R. Yabroff, W. Barlow, et al. Improving the Concordance of Mammography Assessment and Management Recommendations Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 67 - 75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Lazarus, M. B. Mainiero, B. Schepps, S. L. Koelliker, and L. S. Livingston BI-RADS Lexicon for US and Mammography: Interobserver Variability and Positive Predictive Value Radiology, May 1, 2006; 239(2): 385 - 391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Haars, P. A.H. van Noord, C. H. van Gils, D. E. Grobbee, and P. H.M. Peeters Measurements of Breast Density: No Ratio for a Ratio Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2005; 14(11): 2634 - 2640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. M. Hall, E. A. Sickles, C. Lehman, R. Smith-Bindman, B. C. Yankaskas, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, and K. Kerlikowske Short-Interval Follow-up in Screening Mammography * Dr Sickles and colleagues respond: Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 371 - 373. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Sickles, D. L. Miglioretti, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. M. Geller, J. W. T. Leung, R. D. Rosenberg, R. Smith-Bindman, and B. C. Yankaskas Performance Benchmarks for Diagnostic Mammography Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 775 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. J. Aiello, D. S. M. Buist, E. White, D. Seger, and S. H. Taplin Rate of Breast Cancer Diagnoses among Postmenopausal Women with Self-Reported Breast Symptoms J Am Board Fam Med, November 1, 2004; 17(6): 408 - 415. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. E. Barlow, C. D. Lehman, Y. Zheng, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. C. Yankaskas, G. R. Cutter, P. A. Carney, B. M. Geller, R. Rosenberg, K. Kerlikowske, et al. Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, August 7, 2002; 94(15): 1151 - 1159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]