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
-
2 American College of Radiology .Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA; American College of Radiology 2003
-
3 American College of Radiology .Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA; American College of Radiology 1998
-
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
-
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
-
6
Rubin E.
Six-month follow-up: an alternative view.
Radiology.
1999;
213
15-18
-
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
-
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
-
9 Fischer U. Mammographiebefundung nach BI-RADS. Stuttgart; Thieme 2003
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
16 Aktuelle Information der AG Mammadiagnostik. Fortschr Röntgenstr . 2005 177: 1453
-
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
-
18
Berg W A.
Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts.
Radiol Clin N Am.
2004;
42
845-851
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
23
Wolfe J N.
Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer.
Am J Roentgenol.
1976;
126
1130-1139
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
28
Gordon P B, Goldenberg S L.
Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review.
Cancer.
1995;
76
626-630
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
35
Sickles E A.
Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases.
Radiology.
1991;
179
463-468
-
36
Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne J H.
Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography.
Radiology.
1992;
184
409-414
-
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
-
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
-
39 Schulz K D, Albert U S. Stufe-3-Leitlinie, Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland. Zuckerschwerdt 2004
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
54
Rahbar G, Sie A C, Hansen G C. et al .
Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation.
Radiology.
1999;
213
889-894
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
58
Perry N M.
Quality assurance in the diagnosis of breast disease.
Eur J Cancer.
2001;
37
159-172
-
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
-
60
Orel S G, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan D C.
BI-RADS categorziation as a predictor of malignancy.
Radiology.
1999;
211
845-850
-
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
-
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
-
63
Nunes L W, Schnall M D, Orel S G.
Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model.
Radiology.
2001;
219
484-494
-
64
Daniel B L, Yen Y F, Glover G H. et al .
Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging.
Radiology.
1998;
209
499-509
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
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
