Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRoychowdhury, Prithwijit
dc.contributor.authorVijayaraghavan, Gopal
dc.contributor.authorRoubil, John G.
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Imani M.
dc.contributor.authorSiddiqui, Efaza
dc.contributor.authorVedantham, Srinivasan
dc.date2022-08-11T08:10:50.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T17:21:56Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T17:21:56Z
dc.date.issued2022-02-14
dc.date.submitted2022-07-15
dc.identifier.citation<p>Roychowdhury P, Vijayaraghavan GR, Roubil J, Williams IM, Siddiqui E, Vedantham S. Value of BI-RADS 3 Audits. Biomed J Sci Tech Res. 2022 Feb;41(5):33086-33092. doi: 10.26717/BJSTR.2022.41.006668. Epub 2022 Feb 14. PMID: 35392255; PMCID: PMC8983005. <a href="https://doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2022.41.006668">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn2574-1241 (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.26717/BJSTR.2022.41.006668
dc.identifier.pmid35392255
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/48637
dc.description.abstractObjectives: BI-RADS 3 is an established assessment category in which the probability of malignancy is equal to or less than 2%. However, monitoring adherence to imaging criteria can be challenging and there are few established benchmarks for auditing BI-RADS 3 assignments. In this study, we explore some parameters that could serve as useful tools for quality control and clinical practice management. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study covered a 4-year period (Jan 2014-Dec 2017) and included all women over 40 years who were recalled from a screening exam and had an initial assignment of BI-RADS 3 (probably benign) category after diagnostic workup. A follow-up period of 2 years following the assignment of BI-RADS 3 was used for quantitative quality control metrics. Results: Among 135,765 screening exams, 13,453 were recalled and 1,037 BI-RADS 3 cases met inclusion criteria. The follow-up rate at 24 months was 86.7%. The upgrade rate was 7.4% (77/1,037) [CI: 5.9-9.2%] and the PPV3 was 33.8% (26/77) [CI: 23.4-45.5%]. The cancer yield was 2.51% (26/1,037) [CI: 1.64-3.65%] and did not differ (p=0. 243) from the 2% probability of malignancy. The initial BI-RADS3 per screening exam and per recall from screening were 0.76% (1,037/135,765) [CI: 0.72-0.81%] and 7.7% (1,037/13,453) [CI: 7.26-8.17%], respectively. Conclusion: Regular audit of BIRADS 3 metrics has the potential to provide additional insights for clinical practice management. Data from varied clinical settings with input from an expert committee could help establish benchmarks for these metrics.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=35392255&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.rightsCopyright @ Srinivasan Vedantham. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectBI-RADS 3
dc.subjectBI-RADS criteria
dc.subjectbreast cancer
dc.subjectmammography
dc.subjectradiology
dc.subjectscreening
dc.subjectDiagnosis
dc.subjectHealth Services Administration
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.subjectNeoplasms
dc.subjectRadiology
dc.subjectSkin and Connective Tissue Diseases
dc.subjectWomen's Health
dc.titleValue of BI-RADS 3 Audits
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleBiomedical journal of scientific and technical research
dc.source.volume41
dc.source.issue5
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&amp;context=radiology_pubs&amp;unstamped=1
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/radiology_pubs/700
dc.identifier.contextkey30234288
refterms.dateFOA2022-08-23T17:21:56Z
html.description.abstract<p>Objectives: BI-RADS 3 is an established assessment category in which the probability of malignancy is equal to or less than 2%. However, monitoring adherence to imaging criteria can be challenging and there are few established benchmarks for auditing BI-RADS 3 assignments. In this study, we explore some parameters that could serve as useful tools for quality control and clinical practice management.</p> <p>Materials and Methods: This retrospective study covered a 4-year period (Jan 2014-Dec 2017) and included all women over 40 years who were recalled from a screening exam and had an initial assignment of BI-RADS 3 (probably benign) category after diagnostic workup. A follow-up period of 2 years following the assignment of BI-RADS 3 was used for quantitative quality control metrics.</p> <p>Results: Among 135,765 screening exams, 13,453 were recalled and 1,037 BI-RADS 3 cases met inclusion criteria. The follow-up rate at 24 months was 86.7%. The upgrade rate was 7.4% (77/1,037) [CI: 5.9-9.2%] and the PPV3 was 33.8% (26/77) [CI: 23.4-45.5%]. The cancer yield was 2.51% (26/1,037) [CI: 1.64-3.65%] and did not differ (p=0. 243) from the 2% probability of malignancy. The initial BI-RADS3 per screening exam and per recall from screening were 0.76% (1,037/135,765) [CI: 0.72-0.81%] and 7.7% (1,037/13,453) [CI: 7.26-8.17%], respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion: Regular audit of BIRADS 3 metrics has the potential to provide additional insights for clinical practice management. Data from varied clinical settings with input from an expert committee could help establish benchmarks for these metrics.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathradiology_pubs/700
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Radiology
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.source.pages33086-33092


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
BJSTR.MS.ID.006668.pdf
Size:
532.8Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright @ Srinivasan Vedantham. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright @ Srinivasan Vedantham. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.