Skip to main content
Log in

BI-RADS update for breast cancer caregivers

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This review will discuss changes relevant to breast cancer caregivers in the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D’Orsi CJSE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  2. Venkatesan A, Chu P, Kerlikowske K, Sickles EA, Smith-Bindman R (2009) Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables. Radiology 250:648–657

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ et al (2007) Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology 242:388–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bent CK, Bassett LW, D’Orsi CJ, Sayre JW (2010) The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol 194:1378–1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E, Bhargavan M (2001) Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 221:495–503

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol 171:35–40

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee CH (2004) Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am 42:919–934

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Leung JW, Sickles EA (2007) Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol 188:667–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitka M (2007) New ultrasound “elasticity” technique may reduce need for breast biopsies. JAMA 297:455

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ et al (2012) Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 262:435–449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE (2012) Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology 265:59–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Lorusso AP, Cohen MA, Bovbjerg VE (2009) Short-term follow-up of palpable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. Am J Roentgenol 193:1723–1730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA (2007) Probably benign breast masses at US: Is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 244:87–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. King V, Brooks JD, Bernstein JL, Reiner AS, Pike MC, Morris EA (2011) Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk. Radiology 260:50–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB (2014) Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol 32:2304–2310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial conflict of interest.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors declare that this review complies with United States’ ethical standards. As this is a review, no human/animal experiments were performed, and no informed consent was needed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily L. Sedgwick.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sedgwick, E.L., Ebuoma, L., Hamame, A. et al. BI-RADS update for breast cancer caregivers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 150, 243–254 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3332-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3332-4

Keywords

Navigation