We have located links that may give you full text access.
Prevalence and Predictive Value of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 Lesions Detected on Breast MRI: Correlation with Study Indication.
Academic Radiology 2017 April
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the prevalence and predictive value of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3, 4, and 5 findings on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to evaluate the impact of study indication on the predictive value of BI-RADS categories.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant retrospective review of our breast MRI database from 2009 to 2011, of 5778 contrast-enhanced studies in 3360 patients was performed. At our institution, each breast receives an individual BI-RADS assessment. Breast MRI reports and electronic medical records were reviewed to obtain BI-RADS assessment, patient demographics, and outcomes. Univariate analysis was performed with Fisher exact and chi-square tests.
RESULTS: A total of 9216 BI-RADS assessments were assigned during the study period: 7879 (85.5%) BI-RADS 1 and 2, 567 (6.2%) BI-RADS 3, 715 (7.8%) BI-RADS 4, and 55 (0.6%) BI-RADS 5 assessments. The frequency of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 assessments was higher in studies performed for diagnostic (7.8%, 14.6%, 1.6%, respectively) than screening (5.2%, 4.0%, 0.1%) indications (P < 0.01). A total of 663 BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions were biopsied with 209 (31.5%) malignant and 454 (68.5%) benign outcomes. The overall cancer rate for BI-RADS 3 findings was 1.9% (11 of 567) with no difference observed by study indication (diagnostic, 1.6%; screening, 2.3%; P = 0.76). The positive predictive value (PPV2) of BI-RADS 4 and 5 was higher for diagnostic (29.1%, 154 of 530) than for screening (22.9%, 55 of 240) indications.
CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal interpretation rates and PPV2 for MRIs performed for diagnostic indications are higher than for screening indications. Similar to mammography, breast MRI audits should be separated by study indication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliant retrospective review of our breast MRI database from 2009 to 2011, of 5778 contrast-enhanced studies in 3360 patients was performed. At our institution, each breast receives an individual BI-RADS assessment. Breast MRI reports and electronic medical records were reviewed to obtain BI-RADS assessment, patient demographics, and outcomes. Univariate analysis was performed with Fisher exact and chi-square tests.
RESULTS: A total of 9216 BI-RADS assessments were assigned during the study period: 7879 (85.5%) BI-RADS 1 and 2, 567 (6.2%) BI-RADS 3, 715 (7.8%) BI-RADS 4, and 55 (0.6%) BI-RADS 5 assessments. The frequency of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 assessments was higher in studies performed for diagnostic (7.8%, 14.6%, 1.6%, respectively) than screening (5.2%, 4.0%, 0.1%) indications (P < 0.01). A total of 663 BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions were biopsied with 209 (31.5%) malignant and 454 (68.5%) benign outcomes. The overall cancer rate for BI-RADS 3 findings was 1.9% (11 of 567) with no difference observed by study indication (diagnostic, 1.6%; screening, 2.3%; P = 0.76). The positive predictive value (PPV2) of BI-RADS 4 and 5 was higher for diagnostic (29.1%, 154 of 530) than for screening (22.9%, 55 of 240) indications.
CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal interpretation rates and PPV2 for MRIs performed for diagnostic indications are higher than for screening indications. Similar to mammography, breast MRI audits should be separated by study indication.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app