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: Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy and Efficiency of Categories 4 and 5 of the Second Edition of the BI-RADS Ultrasound Lexicon in Diagnosing Breast Lesions.
    Author: Zou X, Wang J, Lan X, Lin Q, Han F, Liu L, Li A.
    Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Sep; 42(9):2065-71. PubMed ID: 27262521.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of categories 4 and 5 of the second edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) ultrasound (US) lexicon in diagnosing breast lesions. In our retrospective study, 579 lesions in 544 patients were assessed by US as the preliminary diagnosis and classified in subcategories 4a-4c and category 5 based on the second edition of the BI-RADS US lexicon with some obvious changes, such as the redefined margin, new calcification type, associated features and some special cases. Inter-observer agreement was determined. Ultrasound results were compared with the pathologic results for confirmation. Positive predictive values (PPVs) of subcategories 4a-4c were compared with theoretical values using the χ(2) test; the binomial test was used for category 5 lesions. Of the 579 lesions, 212 were confirmed as benign (36.61%), and the remaining 367 lesions were confirmed as borderline/malignant (63.39%). Inter-observer agreement was moderate for subcategories 4a-4c (κ = 0.52), moderate for subcategories 4a-4c and category 5 (κ = 0.56) and substantial for categories 4 and 5 (κ = 0.67). The PPVs for subcategories 4a-4c were 23.74%, 70.67% and 81.25%, respectively. In addition, the total PPV for category 4 was 46.92% (183/390), and the total PPV for category 5 was 97.35% (184/189). Statistical results revealed that the PPVs of subcategories 4a and 4b differed significantly from the theoretical values (p < 0.05); the PPVs of subcategory 4c and category 5 were significantly correlated with the theoretical PPVs (p > 0.05). In conclusion, subcategories 4a and 4b have lower diagnostic efficiency than subcategory 4c and category 5. Inter-observer agreement for subcategories 4a-4c remains to be improved. The most common features of subcategories 4a-4c differ, but overlap. It is recommended that inexperienced doctors in primary hospitals not classify lesions into subcategories in clinical practice.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]