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.
References
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
Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR (1994) Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 331:1493–1499
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
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
American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 224:871–880
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
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 90:1801–1809
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
Lacquement MA, Mitchell D, Hollingsworth AB (1999) Positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system. J Am Coll Surg 189:34–40
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
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
Liberman L, Menell JH (2002) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin North Am 40:409–430
Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC (1999) BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 211:845–850
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
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
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
Sickles EA (1991) Periodic mammorgaphic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results of 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179:463–468
Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH (1992) Nonpalpable probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 184:409–414
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
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
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
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
Wolfe JN (1976) Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 126:1130–1139
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
Satija S, Moore RH, Michalson JS, et al (2000) Breast tissue patterns as a risk factor for developing cancer (abstract). Radiology 217 (P):446
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
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
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 222:529–535
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Obenauer, S., Hermann, K.P. & Grabbe, E. Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol 15, 1027–1036 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2593-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2593-9