Download PDF
Radiologie up2date 2005; 5(4): 285-312
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-921057
Brustbildgebung/Mammographie
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

BI-RADS update: Mammographie, Brustultraschall und Kernspinmammographie

BI-RADS update: Mammography, Breast Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the BreastAndreas  Saleh1 , Kathinka  D.  Kurz1 , Ulrich  Mödder1
  • 1 Institut für Diagnostische Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 December 2005 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Corrected by:

BI-RADS update: Mammographie, Brustultraschall und KernspinmammographieRadiologie up2date 2006; 6(01): 1-1
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-925226

Zusammenfassung

Das Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ist ein Instrument zur Qualitätssicherung in der Mammadiagnostik. Ein Breast-Imaging-Lexikon, das jeweils für die Röntgenmammographie, den Brustultraschall und die Kernspinmammographie definiert ist, gibt die Kategorien und Begriffe vor, in denen eine Mammauntersuchung beschrieben werden soll. Der Befund endet mit der Zuweisung einer abschließenden Beurteilungskategorie, die das Karzinomrisiko nach Bewertung aller Untersuchungen und der Anamnese zusammenfasst und gleichzeitig eine Empfehlung zum weiteren Procedere ausspricht. Die nachfolgende Übersicht stellt die Breast-Imaging-Lexika Röntgenmammographie, Brustultraschall und Kernspinmammographie kurz vor und fasst die Datenlage zur klinischen Wertigkeit des BI-RADS zusammen.

Abstract

The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) is a quality assurance tool in breast evaluation. A breast imaging lexicon, which has been defined for mammography breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging of the breast, standardizes terminology used in reporting findings on breast examinations. Every report ends with the assignment of a final assessment category to describe the risk of malignancy and recommend the action to be taken after the history and results of all breast examinations are taken into account. This article gives a short introduction to breast imaging lexica mammography, breast ultrasound, magnetic resonance of the breast and reviews the literature about the clinical usefulness of the BI-RADS.

Key words

BI-RADS · breast cancer · mammography · breast ultrasound · breast MRI

Literatur

  • 1 American College of Radiology .Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA; American College of Radiology 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 2 American College of Radiology .Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA; American College of Radiology 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 3 American College of Radiology .Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA; American College of Radiology 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Hong A S, Rosen E L, Soo M S, Baker J A. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features.  Am J Roentgenol. 2005;  184 1260-1265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Rosen E L, Baker J A, Soo M S. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up.  Radiology. 2002;  223 221-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: an alternative view.  Radiology. 1999;  213 15-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sickles E A. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol?.  Radiology. 1999;  213 11-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Samardar P, de Paredes E S, Grimes M M, Wilson J D. Focal asymmetric densities seen at mammography: US and pathologic correlation.  Radiographics. 2002;  22 19-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fischer U. Mammographiebefundung nach BI-RADS. Stuttgart; Thieme 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Berg W A, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton M J. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.  Am J Roentgenol. 2000;  174 1769-1777
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Berg W A, D’Orsi C J, Jackson V P. et al . 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. 2002;  224 871-880
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Liberman L, Abramson A F, Squires F B. et al . The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.  Am J Roentgenol. 1998;  171 35-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Carney P A, Miglioretti D L, Yankaskas B C. et al . Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;  138 168-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Vacek P M, Geller B M. A prospective study of breast cancer risk using routine mammographic breast density measurements.  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;  13 715-722
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Geller B M, Barlow W E, Ballard-Barbash R. et al . 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aktuelle Information der AG Mammadiagnostik. Fortschr Röntgenstr . 2005 177: 1453
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Berg W A. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666.  Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  180 1225-1228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Berg W A. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts.  Radiol Clin N Am. 2004;  42 845-851
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ikeda D M, Hylton N M, Kinkel K. et al . Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;  13 889-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Liberman L, Morris E A, Dershaw D D. et al . Ductal enhancement on MR imaging of the breast.  Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  181 519-525
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Liberman L, Morris E A, Lee M JY. et al . Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value.  Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  179 171-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kuhl C K, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S. et al . Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?.  Radiology. 1999;  211 101-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Wolfe J N. Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer.  Am J Roentgenol. 1976;  126 1130-1139
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mandelson M T, Oestereicher N, Porter D W. et al . Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;  92 1081-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kopans D B. Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically.  Am J Roentgenol. 2004;  182 489-491
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P. et al . Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography.  Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2000;  21 325-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Crystal P, Strano S D, Shcharynski S, Koretz M J. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.  Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  181 177-182
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Gordon P B, Goldenberg S L. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review.  Cancer. 1995;  76 626-630
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kaplan S S. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue.  Radiology. 2001;  221 641-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kolb T M, Lichy J, Newhouse J H. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27. 825 patient evaluations.  Radiology. 2002;  225 165-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C. et al . Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density.  Am J Roentgenol. 2003;  180 1675-1679
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kerlikowske K, Shepherd J, Creasman J. et al . Are breast density and bone mineral density independent risk factors for breast cancer?.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;  97 368-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Zonderland H M, Pope T L, Nieborg A J. 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. 2004;  14 1743-1750
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Ljung B M, Grady D. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;  139 274-284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sickles E A. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases.  Radiology. 1991;  179 463-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne J H. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography.  Radiology. 1992;  184 409-414
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S. et al . 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. 2002;  179 15-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Yasmeen S, Romano P S, Pettinger M. et al . Frequency and predictive value of mammographic recommandation for short-interval follow-up.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;  95 429-436
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Schulz K D, Albert U S. Stufe-3-Leitlinie, Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland. Zuckerschwerdt 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L A. et al . Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.  Radiology. 2005;  234 684-692
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Caplan L S, Blackman D, Nadel M, Monticciolo D L. Coding mammograms using the classification „probably benign finding - short interval follow-up suggested.  Am J Roentgenol. 1999;  172 339-342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Monticciolo D L, Caplan L S. The American College of Radiology’s BI-RADS 3 classification in a nationwide screening program: current assessment and comparison with earlier use.  Breast J. 2004;  10 106-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Varas X, Leborgne J H, Leborgne F. et al . Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.  Am J Roentgenol. 2002;  179 691-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L. et al . Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography.  Radiology. 2001;  219 475-483
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Stomper P C, Leibowich S, Meyer J E. The prevalence and distribution of well-curcumscribed nodules on screening mammography: analysis of 1500 mammograms.  Breast Dis. 1991;  4 197-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Sickles E A. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid brast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient.  Radiology. 1994;  192 439-442
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Graf O, Helbich T H, Fuchsjaeger M H. et al . Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted?.  Radiology. 2004;  233 850-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Baker J A, Kornguth P J, Floyd C E. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.  Am J Roentgenol. 1996;  166 773-778
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J. et al . Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American college of radiology breast imaging reporting and data system.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;  90 1801-1809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Pijnappel R M, Peeters P HM, Hendriks J HCL, Mali W PThM. Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications.  Br J Radiol. 2004;  77 312-314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Poplack S P, Tosteson A N, Grove M R. et al . Mammography in 53. 803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network.  Radiology. 2000;  217 832-840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Taplin S H, Ichikawa L E, Kerlikowske K. et al . Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.  Radiology. 2002;  222 529-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Chen S C, Cheung Y C, Su C H. et al . Analysis of sonographic features for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors of different sizes.  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;  23 188-193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Rahbar G, Sie A C, Hansen G C. et al . Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.  Radiology. 1999;  213 889-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Stavros A T, Thickman D, Rapp C L. et al . Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions.  Radiology. 1995;  196 123-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Baker J A, Kornguth P J, Soo M S. et al . Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment.  Am J Roentgenol. 1999;  172 1621-1625
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Mainiero M B, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E. et al . Characterization of breast masses with sonography. Can Biopsy of some solid masses be deferred.  J Ultrasound Med. 2005;  24 161-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Perry N M. Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease.  Eur J Cancer. 2001;  37 159-172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Baez E, Strathmann K, Vetter M. et al . Likelihood of malignancy in breast lesions characterised by ultrasound with a combined diagnositc score.  Ultrasound Med Biol. 2005;  31 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Orel S G, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan D C. BI-RADS categorziation as a predictor of malignancy.  Radiology. 1999;  211 845-850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Lacquement M A, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth A B. Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system.  J Am Coll Surg. 1999;  189 34-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Tan Y Y, Wee S B, Tan M PC, Chong B K. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization in an asian population.  Asian J Surg. 2004;  27 186-191
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Nunes L W, Schnall M D, Orel S G. Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model.  Radiology. 2001;  219 484-494
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Daniel B L, Yen Y F, Glover G H. et al . Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging.  Radiology. 1998;  209 499-509
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Kuhl C K, Schmutzler R K, Leutner C C. et al . Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results.  Radiology. 2000;  215 267-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Liberman L, Morris E A, Bentson C L. et al . Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging. Preliminary experience in high-risk women.  Cancer. 2003;  98 377-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Sadowski E A, Kelcz F. Frequency of malignancy in lesions classified as probably benign after dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI examination.  J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;  21 556-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Stoutjesdikk M J, Boets C, Jager G J. et al . Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;  93 1095-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Kriege M, Brekelmans C TM, Boets C. et al . Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.  N Engl J Med. 2004;  351 427-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Priv.-Doz. Dr. Andreas Saleh

Institut für Diagnostische Radiologie

Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf · Moorenstr. 5 · 40225 Düsseldorf

Phone: 0211 811-8896, 0211 811-7752

Fax: 0211 811-6145

Email: saleh@uni-duesseldorf.de

      >