ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Nonpalpable breast lesions: impact of a second-opinion review at a breast unit on BI-RADS classification.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multi-Scale Vision Transformer with Optimized Feature Fusion for Mammographic Breast Cancer Classification.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- BI-RADS Category Assignments by GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Google Bard: A Multilanguage Study.Radiology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic value of shear wave elastography combined with super microvascular imaging for BI-RADS 3-5 nodules.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare BI-RADS classification, management, and outcome of nonpalpable breast lesions assessed both by community practices and by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) at a breast unit.
methodsAll nonpalpable lesions that were first assigned a BI-RADS score by community practices and then reassessed by an MTB at a single breast unit from 2009 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Inter-review agreement was assessed with Cohen's kappa statistic. Changes in biopsy recommendation were calculated. The percentage of additional tumor lesions detected by the MTB was obtained. The sensitivity, AUC, and cancer rates for BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions were computed for both reviews.
resultsA total of 1909 nonpalpable lesions in 1732 patients were included. For BI-RADS scores in the whole cohort, a fair agreement was found (κ = 0.40 [0.36-0.45]) between the two reviews. Agreement was higher when considering only mammography combined with ultrasound (κ = 0.53 [0.44-0.62]), masses (κ = 0.50 [0.44-0.56]), and architectural distortion (κ = 0.44 [0.11-0.78]). Changes in biopsy recommendation occurred in 589 cases (31%). Ninety of 345 additional biopsies revealed high-risk or malignant lesions. Overall, the MTB identified 27% additional high-risk and malignant lesions compared to community practices. The BI-RADS classification AUCs for detecting malignant lesions were 0.66 (0.63-0.69) for community practices and 0.76 (0.75-0.78) for the MTB (p < 0.001).
conclusionAgreement between community practices and MTB reviews for BI-RADS classification in nonpalpable lesions is only fair. MTB review improves diagnostic performances of breast imaging and patient management. KEY POINTS: • The inter-review agreement for BI-RADS classification between community practices and the multidisciplinary board was only fair (κ = 0.40). • Disagreements resulted in changes of biopsy recommendation in 31% of the lesions. • The multidisciplinary board identified 27% additional high-risk and malignant lesions compared to community practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.