These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Clinical evaluation of full-field digital mammography and breast imaging reporting and data system on breast diseases].
    Author: Li JG, Li S, Liu Q, Zhao TT.
    Journal: Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi; 2007 Apr 01; 45(7):464-6. PubMed ID: 17686303.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the values of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) on breast diseases. METHODS: Eight hundreds and thirty-one patients with 871 focuses were analyzed who underwent imaging examinations with FFDM before operation during January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005. All patients received operation and had identified pathological diagnosis including breast cancer, breast fibroma, intraductal papilloma and breast disease. The radiological diagnosis followed BI-RADS suggested by American College of Radiology. RESULTS: The imaging diagnostic sensitivity of overall focuses was 80.9%, the specificity was 90.0%, the positive predictive value was 88.4%, the negative predictive value was 83.3% and the diagnose accuracy was 85.5%. Two hundreds and sixty cases (97.7%) were pathological diagnosed breast cancer in BI-RADS category V, 67.8% (82/121) in BI-RADS category IV and 16.7% (81/484) in BI-RADS category I-III. CONCLUSIONS: When the radiological diagnosis is BI-RADS category V, surgery biopsy is the option. To category IV focuses, surgery biopsy or stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy should be suggested. As to category I-III focuses, the management should be prudent, and other factors should be considered including the social and economic factors.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]