SynthesisEuropean radiology2025
Can structured integration of BI-RADS criteria by a clinical decision rule reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis systematic review and meta-analysis investigate the added value of structured integration of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria using the Kaiser score (KS) to avoid unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions. MATERIAL AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using predefined criteria. Eligible articles, published in English until May 2024, dealt with KS in the context of BI-RADS 4 MRI. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics, including true positives (TP), false positives (FP), true negatives (TN), and false negatives (FN). Sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, and positive likelihood ratio were calculated using bivariate random effects. Fagan nomograms identified the maximum pre-test probability at which post-test probabilities of a negative MRI aligned with the 2% malignancy rate benchmark for downgrading BI-RADS 4 to BI-RADS 3. I² statistics and meta-regression explored sources of heterogeneity. p-values < 0.05 were considered significant.
resultsSeven studies with 1877 lesions (833 malignant, 1044 benign) were included. The average breast cancer prevalence was 47.3%. Pooled sensitivity was 94.3% (95%-CI 88.9%-97.1%), and pooled specificity was 68.1% (95%-CI 56.6%-77.7%) using a random effects model. Overall, 52/833 cases were FNs (6.2%). Fagan nomograms showed that KS could rule out breast cancer in BI-RADS 4 lesions at a pre-test probability of 20.3% for all lesions, 25.4% for masses, and 15.2% for non-mass lesions.
conclusionsIn MRI-assessed BI-RADS 4 lesions, applying structured BI-RADS criteria with the KS reduces unnecessary biopsies by 70% with a 6.2% FN rate. Breast cancer can be ruled out up to pre-test probabilities of 20.3%. KEY POINTS: Question What, if any, value is added by structured integration of BI-RADS criteria using the Kaiser Score (KS) to avoid unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions? Findings The structured integration of BI-RADS criteria using the Kaiser Score (KS) reduces unnecessary biopsies in BI-RADS 4 lesions by 70%. Clinical relevance The structured approach offered by the Kaiser Score (KS) avoids unnecessary recalls, potentially reducing patient anxiety, lessening the burden on medical personnel, and the need for further imaging and biopsies due to more objective and thus efficient clinical decision-making in evaluating BI-RADS 4 lesions.
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.