Editorials

Guide to Mammography Reports: BI-RADS Terminology



FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.


FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.

Am Fam Physician. 2010 Jul 15;82(2):114-115.

Mammography reports use specific terminology from the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)1  to describe findings and to assign a final assessment category (see accompanying table1,2). At times, there may be a question about why a particular category has been selected for a certain patient's examination, and what subsequent management is needed. This editorial addresses questions that commonly arise when primary care physicians interpret mammography reports.

Table.

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Categories

Category Description Likelihood of malignancy Examples Next step in evaluation

0

Incomplete; need additional imaging evaluation, or comparison with previous examinations

Unknown

Asymmetry, mass, calcifications on screening mammography

Special mammographic views, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging; obtain previous examinations

1

Negative

No mammographic evidence of malignancy

Normal mammography

Routine screening

2

Benign finding

No mammographic evidence of malignancy

Intramammary lymph node, oil cyst, vascular calcifications, calcifying fibroadenoma

Routine screening

3

Probably benign finding

Less than 2 percent1

Benign-appearing solid mass or clustered calcifications

Follow-up imaging (mammography or ultrasonography) at six and 12 months

4

Suspicious abnormality

12 to 25 percent2

Complex or solid mass, indeterminate clustered calcifications

Fine-needle aspiration, percutaneous or surgical biopsy

5

Highly suggestive of malignancy

Greater than 95 percent1

Spiculated mass

Percutaneous or surgical biopsy

6

Known malignancy

100 percent1

Biopsy-proven

Definitive surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy


Information from references 1 and 2.

Table.   Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Categories

View Table

Table.

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Categories

Category Description Likelihood of malignancy Examples Next step in evaluation

0

Incomplete; need additional imaging evaluation, or comparison with previous examinations

Unknown

Asymmetry, mass, calcifications on screening mammography

Special mammographic views, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging; obtain previous examinations

1

Negative

No mammographic evidence of malignancy

Normal mammography

Routine screening

2

Benign finding

No mammographic evidence of malignancy

Intramammary lymph node, oil cyst, vascular calcifications, calcifying fibroadenoma

Routine screening

3

Probably benign finding

Less than 2 percent1

Benign-appearing solid mass or clustered calcifications

Follow-up imaging (mammography or ultrasonography) at six and 12 months

4

Suspicious abnormality

12 to 25 percent2

Complex or solid mass, indeterminate clustered calcifications

Fine-needle aspiration, percutaneous or surgical biopsy

5

Highly suggestive of malignancy

Greater than 95 percent1

Spiculated mass

Percutaneous or surgical biopsy

6

Known malignancy

100 percent1

Biopsy-proven

Definitive surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy


Information from references 1 and 2.

The same standard terminology (e.g., mass, asymmetry, calcifications) may be used to describe benign or suspicious findings. A mass, for example, can be benign (with a smooth, well-circumscribed margin) or suspicious (with a spiculated margin) in appearance. As a result, the term “mass” could be included in BI-RADS categories 2 (benign findings) through 6 (known malignancy).

BI-RADS category 0 indicates insufficient imaging information to allow for complete evaluation. One example is an abnormal finding on screening mammography that requires further imaging or comparison with previous mammography to verify stability of the finding. After such additional evaluation or comparison, an amended report with a final assessment category (BI-RADS 1 through 6) will be issued.

Results categorized as BI-RADS 1 or 2 are negative or benign; routine screening mammography is typically recommended. However, there are exceptions. For example, if a patient with a palpable lump has been referred for mammography, the next step, even with negative findings, typically is to refer the patient to a surgeon for consultation. Ultrasonography is an alternative, because some studies have shown that the combination of negative mammography and negative targeted ultrasonography in the setting of a palpable breast abnormality has a low likelihood of malignancy (2.6 to 2.7 percent).3

BI-RADS category 3 lesions are most likely benign (less than 2 percent risk of malignancy 1). Other studies indicate an even lower risk of 0.4 to 0.8 percent.2,4 Short-term follow-up (typically reimaging at six and 12 months) is needed, and lesion growth during surveillance should prompt biopsy. Cancers found during this process have a favorable prognosis.

BI-RADS category 4 and 5 lesions are suspected to be malignant. On mammography, BI-RADS category 5 lesions show classic characteristics for cancer (such as spiculated masses). BI-RADS category 4 includes any other findings for which malignancy cannot be excluded, ranging pathologically from fibrocystic tissue to cancer. Tissue sampling (i.e., fine-needle aspiration, or percutaneous or surgical biopsy) typically is needed to further evaluate these lesions.

BI-RADS category 6 indicates a current, diagnosed breast cancer undergoing further imaging evaluation or biopsy. A patient with a history of already-treated breast cancer would not fall into this category, but would be assessed according to current findings.

Use of the BI-RADS categories on mammography reports provides clear communication of the overall results. Although a number of findings may be described, the key question, “Should I be worried about this patient?”, is settled concisely by looking for the BI-RADS category at the end of the report. The assigned category can be useful to primary care physicians, as it is to radiologists, to ensure that the appropriate follow-up is performed. Because the number of patients with a BI-RADS category indicating a need for further assessment (categories 0, 3, 4, and 5) is relatively small compared with the total number of women in a practice undergoing mammography, the numeric category simplifies follow-up by flagging patients in need of more extensive evaluation.

Address correspondence to Rebecca B. Bittner, MD, at rbittner@mfa.gwu.edu. Reprints are not available from the author.

Author disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

REFERENCES

1. BI-RADS—Mammography, 4th ed., American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). Reston, Va.: American College of Radiology; 2003. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/BIRADSAtlas/BIRADSAtlasexcerptedtext/BIRADSMammographyFourthEdition.aspx. Accessed January16, 2009.

2. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management—follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248(3):773–781.

3. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology. 2002;225(1):176–181.

4. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(3):691–695.


Copyright © 2010 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


Article Tools

  • Download PDF
  • Print page
  • Share this page
  • AFP CME Quiz

Information From Industry

More in Pubmed

Navigate this Article