期刊文献+

BI-RADS系统在乳腺X线摄影及超声诊断中的应用 被引量:6

Application of BI-RADS category in digital mammography and ultrasonography
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:探讨BI-BADS分类系统在乳腺X线及超声诊断中的价值。方法:搜集2007年12月-2008年12月均行X线及超声检查、有病理证实或临床随诊1年以上者共1432例患者。年龄23~83岁,均值49.5岁。绝经565例(39.5%),未绝经867例(60.5%)。根据BI-RADS系统对两种检查的结果进行评价。结果:共检出1500个病灶,737个(49.1%)良性病灶,763个(50.9%)恶性病灶。X线BI-RADS 1至5类的恶性百分比分别为12.9%、3.1%、8.9%、70.9%和98.3%;超声分别为3.9%、3.9%、6.3%、62.8%和95.7%。X线、超声BI-RADS分类ROC曲线下的面积分别为0.901和0.945(P=0.000)。X线摄影及超声检查的敏感度分别为90.0%和95.4%,特异度为83.0%和84.8%,准确度为86.6%及90.2%。结论:X线及超声BI-RADS分类系统能很好预测乳腺恶性肿瘤的风险,对于临床有指导价值。 [Abstract] Objective:To investigate the performance of digital mammography (DM) and ultrasonography (US) with BI-RADS categories. Methods: From December 2007 to December 2008,1432 patients suspected of breast carcinoma had DM and US examinations, with pathological confirmation or 1 year follow-up. The patients aged from 23 to 83 years, average 49.5 years. 867 (60.5%) patients were menstruous and the other 565 (39.5%) were menopausal. Both modalities were as sessed according to BI-RADS categories. Results:In 1432 patients, 1500 lesions including 737 benign and 763 malignant were found. The positive predictive value of DM BI-RADS category 1-5 were 12.9%,3. 1%,8.90% ,70.9% and 98.3%,respec tively,and of US were 3.9%,3.9%,6.3% ,62.8% and 95.7%,respectively. The area under ROC of DM and US BI-RADS was 0. 901 and 0. 945, respectively. Conclusion: BI-RADS categories are useful for predicting the presence of malignancy. US has shown better performance than DM for clinical patients.
出处 《放射学实践》 2013年第6期651-654,共4页 Radiologic Practice
关键词 乳腺肿瘤 放射摄影术 超声检查 乳房 Breast neoplasms Radiography Ultrasonography, mammary
  • 相关文献

参考文献13

  • 1Hofvind S, Vacek PM, SkellyJ, et al. Comparing screening mam?mography for early breast cancer detection in vermont and norway[J].J Nat! Cancer Inst,200S,100(15): 10S2-1091.
  • 2Berg W A. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next?[J]. AJR,2009,192(2) :390-399.
  • 3Rosen EL, Turkington TG, Soo MS, et al, Detection of primary breast carcinoma with a dedicated large-field-of- view FDG PET mammography device: initial experience[J]. Radiology, 2005,231 (2): 527-534.
  • 4Berg WA,BlumeJD,CormackJB,et al, Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer[J].J AMA, 2008,299 ( 18) : 2101 2163.
  • 5Leconte I,Feger C,Galant Cv et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the impor?tance of radiologic breast density[J]. AJR,2003,IS0(6): 1675-1679.
  • 6Berg WA,Campassi C,Langenberg Pv et al. Breast imaging repor ting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment[J]. AJR,200(),174(10) :1769-1777.
  • 7Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, et al. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive pre?dictive value[J]. Radiology, 2006,239 (2) : 385-391.
  • 8Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Use of the A merican college of radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammo?graphic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease[J]. Radiology, 2002 ,222(2) :536-542.
  • 9Zonderland HM,Pope TLJr, Nieborg AJ. 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[J]. Eur Radiol , 2004,14(10) : 1743-1750.
  • 10Costantini M, Belli P. Lombardi R,et al. Characterization of solid breast masses: use of the sonographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon[J].J Ultrasound Med,2006,25(S) :649-609.

二级参考文献16

  • 1American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 3th ed. Reston: Am College Radiol, 1998.1-90.
  • 2Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Finder C, et al. Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. AJR,2002,178:797-803.
  • 3Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter-and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR, 2000, 174:1769-1777.
  • 4Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR, 1996, 166:773-778.
  • 5Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, et al. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR, 1998, 171:35-40.
  • 6DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 1988, 44:837-845.
  • 7Svanholm H, Starklint H, Gundersen HJ, et al. Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS, 1989, 97:689-698.
  • 8Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977, 33:159-174.
  • 9Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, et al. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radilolgy, 1999, 211:845-850.
  • 10Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, et al. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR, 2002, 179:691-695.

共引文献26

同被引文献63

引证文献6

二级引证文献23

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部