Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

An important difficulty regarding the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 assessment is the need for extensive diagnostic workup and an additional 6-month follow-up study.

Purpose

To evaluate the feasibility of the BI-RADS category 3 assessments at opportunistic screening.

Material and Methods

Mammography charts of 9062 screening patients in a major teaching hospital situated in an urban setting of a developing country were evaluated retrospectively (1997–2010). BI-RADS category 3 patients, called for a 6-month follow-up, which comprised a single-view spot or magnification mammogram. The length of follow-up period, compliance to periodic mammographic surveillance, cancer detection rate, and negative predictive values of category 3 assessments were calculated.

Results

Of the screened population, 9.2% were assigned BI-RADS category 3, and 31.2% of these cases were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up period for 606 patients was 36.9 months. The negative predictive values for 6-month, 12-month, and final control studies were 90.9%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. Patient compliance for 6 months, 12 months, and any control evaluations beyond 12 months was low (50.0%, 29.8%, and 47.5%, respectively). Cancer detection rate was 0.8%.

Conclusion

Results of the study supports the feasibility of the BI-RADS category 3 assessments at opportunistic screening without any additional diagnostic workup. The practice of category 3 assessment following screening mammograms may be a more cost-effective method for developing countries with high recall rates and low resources in eliminating the maximum risk with minimum cost within the limits of available resources.

Keywords

Breast cancer screening mammography BI-RADS category 3 short-interval follow-up cancer detection rate

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sickles

. Management of probably benign lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995; 33: 1123–1130.

Kerlikowske

Grady

Barclay

. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270: 2444–2450.

Sickles EA, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, et al. ACR BI-RADS mammography. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013: 141–167.

Aiello Bowles

Miglioretti

Sickles

. Accuracy of short interval follow-up mammograms by patient and radiologist characteristics. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 1200–1208.

Kerlikowske

Smith-Bindman

Abraham

. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short interval follow-up. Radiology 2005; 234: 684–692.

Varas

Leborgne

. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 691–695.

Barton

Moore

Polk

. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 150–156.

Sickles

. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179: 463–468.

Varas

Leborgne

. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184: 409–414.

10.

Wolfe

Buck

Salane

. Xeroradiography of the breast: overview of 21,057 consecutive cases. Radiology 1987; 165: 305–311.

11.

Helvie

Pennes

Rebner

. Mammographic follow-up of low suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178: 155–158.

12.

Vizcaino

Gadea

Andreo

. Short term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219: 475–483.

13.

Geller

Barlow

Ballard-Barbash

. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002; 222: 536–542.

14.

Taplin

Ichikawa

Kerlikowske

. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222: 529–535.

15.

Yankaskas

Cleveland

Schell

. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 543–549.

16.

Kayhan

Gurdal

Ozaydin

. First round results of a long-term population-based breast cancer screening program from Bahcesehir. J Breast Health 2012; 8: 180–184.

17.

Yasmeen

Romano

Pettinger

. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow- up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 429–436.

18.

Sahingoz

Turk

Sever

. Phosphor screen digital mammography; experience with 8592 screening mammographies. EJC Supplements 2004; 2: 89–90.

19.

Tuncbilek

Ozdemir

Gultekin

. Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007; 13: 183–187.

20.

Turk

Aribal

. Medical audit of mammography screening examinations. Marmara Med J 2002; 15: 27–32.

21.

Sickles

. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999; 213: 11–14.

22.

Sickles

Parker

. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy, in the management of probably benign lesions (letter). Radiology 1994; 190: 313–314.

23.

Baum

Hanna

Acharyya

. Use of BI-RADS 3 - probably benign category in the American College of Radiology imaging network: Digital mammographic imaging screening trial. Radiology 2011; 260: 61–67.

Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References