AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Varas, X.
Right arrow Articles by Leborgne, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Varas, X.
Right arrow Articles by Leborgne, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
AJR 2002; 179:691-695
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Revisiting the Mammographic Follow-Up of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions

Ximena Varas1, José H. Leborgne, Francisco Leborgne, Julieta Mezzera, Sylvia Jaumandreu and Felix Leborgne

1 All authors: Instituto de Radiología y Centro de Lucha Contra el Cáncer, Pereira Rossell Hospital, B. Artigas 1550, 11600 Montevideo, Uruguay.

OBJECTIVE. Using data collected for one series during 1987-1989 and data collected for another series during 1996, we sought to compare the frequency of and positive predictive value for carcinoma of the breast in nonpalpable, probably benign lesions that had been detected on and followed up with mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. During 1996, mammography was performed in 18,435 women of whom 544 (3.0%) had lesions assigned to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 for nonpalpable, probably benign lesions. The lesions in the women were assessed as BI-RADS category 3 after the patients had undergone a diagnostic study that included additional imaging, sonography, and a focused physical examination. Patients with BI-RADS category 3 lesions were recommended for mammographic surveillance. A minimum of 2 years of follow-up data was available for 511 patients, our study population. We compared the findings for our study population with those of the previous study.

RESULTS. Ninety-seven percent of the follow-up mammograms showed stability or regression of the BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Fourteen patients (3%) had nonpalpable interval progression revealed on mammography and underwent biopsy. The breast cancer detection rate in category 3 lesions among the study population was 0.4% (2/511), which was 14% of the patients who had undergone biopsies because of interval progression of the lesions. The pathologic stage of the cancers in these two patients was T1b N0.

CONCLUSION. Compared with the findings from the 1987-1989 study, the frequency of BI-RADS category 3 lesions has remained stable; patient compliance for follow-up has increased; and the positive predictive value of category 3 lesions for cancer has decreased from 1.7% to 0.4% (p = 0.04).


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. A. Harvey, B. T. Nicholson, A. P. LoRusso, M. A. Cohen, and V. E. Bovbjerg
Short-Term Follow-Up of Palpable Breast Lesions With Benign Imaging Features: Evaluation of 375 Lesions in 320 Women
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2009; 193(6): 1723 - 1730.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. R. Eby, W. B. DeMartini, R. L. Gutierrez, M. H. Saini, S. Peacock, and C. D. Lehman
Characteristics of Probably Benign Breast MRI Lesions
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2009; 193(3): 861 - 867.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. H. Shin, B.-K. Han, E. Y. Ko, Y. H. Choe, and S.-J. Nam
Probably Benign Breast Masses Diagnosed by Sonography: Is There a Difference in the Cancer Rate According to Palpability?
Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2009; 192(4): W187 - W191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
A. Venkatesan, P. Chu, K. Kerlikowske, E. A. Sickles, and R. Smith-Bindman
Positive Predictive Value of Specific Mammographic Findings according to Reader and Patient Variables
Radiology, March 1, 2009; 250(3): 648 - 657.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. J. A. Bowles, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, L. Abraham, P. A. Carney, B. C. Yankaskas, and J. G. Elmore
Accuracy of Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammograms by Patient and Radiologist Characteristics
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1200 - 1208.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
C. D. Lehman, C. M. Rutter, P. R. Eby, E. White, D. S. M. Buist, and S. H. Taplin
Lesion and Patient Characteristics Associated with Malignancy After a Probably Benign Finding on Community Practice Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 511 - 515.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. S. Burnside, T. J. Hall, A. M. Sommer, G. K. Hesley, G. A. Sisney, W. E. Svensson, J. P. Fine, J. Jiang, and N. J. Hangiandreou
Differentiating Benign from Malignant Solid Breast Masses with US Strain Imaging
Radiology, November 1, 2007; 245(2): 401 - 410.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, G. Hopf, C. Graf, and E. A. Sickles
Probably Benign Breast Masses at US: Is Follow-up an Acceptable Alternative to Biopsy?
Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 87 - 93.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. S. Burnside, J. E. Ochsner, K. J. Fowler, J. P. Fine, L. R. Salkowski, D. L. Rubin, and G. A. Sisney
Use of Microcalcification Descriptors in BI-RADS 4th Edition to Stratify Risk of Malignancy
Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 388 - 395.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg
Sonographically Depicted Breast Clustered Microcysts: Is Follow-Up Appropriate?
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 952 - 959.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
F. M. Hall, E. A. Sickles, C. Lehman, R. Smith-Bindman, B. C. Yankaskas, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, and K. Kerlikowske
Short-Interval Follow-up in Screening Mammography * Dr Sickles and colleagues respond:
Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 371 - 373.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles, D. L. Miglioretti, R. Ballard-Barbash, B. M. Geller, J. W. T. Leung, R. D. Rosenberg, R. Smith-Bindman, and B. C. Yankaskas
Performance Benchmarks for Diagnostic Mammography
Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 775 - 790.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, L. A. Abraham, C. D. Lehman, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, W. E. Barlow, J. H. Voeks, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, et al.
Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations with Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up
Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 684 - 692.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, M. H. Fuchsjaeger, G. Hopf, M. Morgun, C. Graf, R. Mallek, and E. A. Sickles
Follow-up of Palpable Circumscribed Noncalcified Solid Breast Masses at Mammography and US: Can Biopsy Be Averted?
Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 850 - 856.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. C. Foster, M. A. Helvie, N. E. Gregory, M. Rebner, A. V. Nees, and C. Paramagul
Lobular Carcinoma in Situ or Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia at Core-Needle Biopsy: Is Excisional Biopsy Necessary?
Radiology, June 1, 2004; 231(3): 813 - 819.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady
Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities
Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, and E. A. Sickles
Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing?
J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 418 - 419.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.