Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 5/2005

01-05-2005 | Breast

Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification

Authors: S. Obenauer, K. P. Hermann, E. Grabbe

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) of the American College of Radiology (ACR) is a tool created to reduce variability in the terminology used in mammographic reports. An illustration of mammographic examples from our institution interpreted according to the BI-RADS lexicon of the American College of Radiology (ACR) is presented. A literature review concerning the usefulness and limitations of the BI-RADS lexicon is given.
Literature
1.
Burns RP, Brown JP, Roe M, Sprouse LR, Yancey AE, Witherspoon LE (2000) Stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy by surgeons. Minimum 2-year follow-up of benign lesions. Ann Surg 232:542–548
2.
Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR (1994) Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499
3.
Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, et al (2002) 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 222:536–542
4.
Sickles EA (1999) Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol. Radiology 213:11–14
5.
American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
6.
Bock K, Iwinska-Zelder J, Duda VF, et al (2001) Validity of the breast imaging reporting and data system BI-RADS for clinical mammography in men. Fortschr Röntgenstr 173:1019–1024
7.
Böhm T, Garzoli E, Marcincek B (2002) Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant mammary lesions with special regard to the BI-RADS classification system in mammography. Gynäkol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 42:191–200
8.
Chabriasis J, Kinkel K, Thibault F (2002) Le système BI-RADS en imagerie mammaire: initiation à son utilisation en version francaise. J Radiol 83:531–534
9.
Gülsün M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyurek M (2003) Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to breast imaging reporting and data system criteria and Le Gal’s classification. Eur Radiol 47:227–231
10.
Obenauer S, Fischer U, Baum F, Dammert St, Füzesi L, Grabbe E (2001) Use of vacuum-assisted biopsy in microcalcifications classified as BI-RADS 3. Fortschr Röntgenstr 174:696–701
11.
Partik B, Mallek R, Rudas M, Pokieser P, Wunderbaldinger P, Helbich TH (2001) Malignant and benign diseases of the breast in 41 male patients: mammography, sonography and pathohistological correlation. Fortschr Röntgenstr 173:1012–1018
12.
Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Fischmann A, Fersis N, Vogel U, Claussen CD, Müller-Schimpfle M (2003) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy-success, histologic accuracy, patient acceptance and optimizing the BI-RADS-correlated indication. Fortschr Röntgenstr 175:99–104
13.
Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE (1995) Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. Am J Roentgenol 166:773–778
14.
Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ (2000) Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777
15.
Berg WA, D’Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, Bassett LW, et al (2002) 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. Radiology 224:871–880PubMed
16.
Bérubé M, Curpen B, Ugolini P, Lalonde L, Ouimet-Oliva D (1998) Level of suspicion of a mammorgaphic lesion: use of features defined by BI-RADS lexicon and correlation with large-core breast biopsy. Can Assoc Radiol J 49:223–228
17.
Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1998) Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology breast imaging reporting and data system. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1801–1809CrossRefPubMed
18.
Kim SJ, Morris EA, Liberman L, et al (2001) Observer variability and applicability of BI-RADS terminology for breast MR imaging: invasive carcinomas as focal masses. Am J Roentgenol 177:551–557
19.
Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB (1999) Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system. J Am Coll Surg 189:34–40CrossRefPubMed
20.
Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S, White E, Urban N (2002) Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. Am J Roentgenol 179:15–20
21.
Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, et al (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol 171:34–40
22.
Liberman L, Menell JH (2002) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin North Am 40:409–430
23.
Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC (1999) BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 211:845–850PubMed
24.
Vitiello SM, Philpotts LE, Tocino I, Horvarth LJ, Lee CH (2000) Understanding of BI-RADS among referring clinicians: do they get it? (abstract) Am J Roentgenol 174(Suppl):64
25.
Zonderland HM, Pope TL, Nieborg AJ (2004) 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. Eur Radiol 14:1743–1750
26.
Caplan LS, Blackman D, Nadel M, Monticciolo DL (1999) Coding mammograms using the classification “probably benign finding-short interval follow-up suggested”. Am J Roentgenol 172:339–342
27.
Sickles EA (1991) Periodic mammorgaphic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results of 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179:463–468
28.
Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH (1992) Nonpalpable probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 184:409–414
29.
Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F (2002) Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Am J Roentgenol 179:691–695
30.
Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenque M, Perez I, Ramos E (2004) Evaluation of breast imaging reporting and data system category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Cancer 100:710–740
31.
Monticciolo DL, Caplan LS (2004) The American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS 3 classification in a nationwide screening program: current assessment and comparison with earlier use. Breast J 10:106–110
32.
Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED, Moore RH, Rafferty EA, Kopans DB (2000) Short interval follow-up mammography for a probable benign finding: is it necessary? Radiology 217:316
33.
Wolfe JN (1976) Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 126:1130–1139
34.
Mandelson MR, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081–1087
35.
Satija S, Moore RH, Michalson JS, et al (2000) Breast tissue patterns as a risk factor for developing cancer (abstract). Radiology 217 (P):446
36.
Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC (1996) Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 156:209–213
37.
Pijnappel RM, Peeters PHM, Hendriks JHCL, Mali WPThM (2004) Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for nonpalpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 77:312–314
38.
Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al (2002) Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 222:529–535PubMed
Metadata
Title
Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification
Authors
S. Obenauer
K. P. Hermann
E. Grabbe
Publication date
01-05-2005
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 5/2005
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2593-9

Other articles of this Issue 5/2005

European Radiology 5/2005 Go to the issue

Chest

Displaced aortic arch sign on chest radiographs: a new sign for the detection of a left paratracheal esophageal mass

Urogenital

Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinoma

Interpretation Corner

A case of bilateral sensory deficits in upper and lower extremities in a woman (2005:5a)

Cardiac

MR demonstration of septal involvement in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia

Contrast Media

Safety of ultrasound contrast agents

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Radiofrequency thermal ablation of liver tumors