OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive value of BI-RADS™ categories 3, 4 and 5 in non-palpable breast masses assessed by mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with BI-RADS categories 3, 4 and 5 nonpalpable breast masses identified by mammograms were submitted to complementary ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies, besides excisional biopsy. In total, 30 biopsies were performed. The lesions as well as their respective BI-RADS classification into 3, 4 and 5 were correlated with the histopathological results. The predictive values calculation was made by means of specific mathematical equations. RESULTS: Negative predictive values for category 3 were: mammography, 69.23%; ultrasound, 70.58%; and magnetic resonance imaging, 100%. Positive predictive values for category 4 were: mammography, 63.63%; ultrasound, 50%; and magnetic resonance imaging, 30.76%. For category 5, positive predictive values were: mammography and ultrasound, 100%; and magnetic resonance imaging, 92.85%. CONCLUSION: For category 3, the negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging was high, and for categories 4 and 5, the positive predictive values of the three modalities were moderate.

Keywords: BI-RADS, Breast cancer, Mammography, Predictive value

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the BI-RADS as a predictive factor of suspicion for malignancy in breast lesions by correlating radiological with histological results and calculating the positive predictive value for categories 3, 4 and 5 in a breast cancer reference center in the city of São Paulo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, analytical and cross-sectional study including 725 patients with mammographic and/or sonographic findings classified as BI-RADS categories 3, 4 and 5 who were referred to the authors' institution to undergo percutaneous biopsy. The tests results were reviewed and the positive predictive value was calculated by means of a specific mathematical equation. RESULTS: Positive predictive values found for categories 3, 4 and 5 were respectively the following: 0.74%, 33.08% and 92.95%, for cases submitted to ultrasound-guided biopsy, and 0.00%, 14.90% and 100% for cases submitted to stereotactic biopsy. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated high suspicion for malignancy in lesions classified as category 5 and low risk for category 3. As regards category 4, the need for systematic biopsies was observed.

Keywords: Breast cancer; BI-RADS; Percutaneous biopsy; Positive predictive value; Histological diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Undertaking of a complete audit of the service of mammography, as recommended by BI-RADS^®, in a private reference institution for breast cancer diagnosis in the city of São Paulo, SP, Brazil, and comparison of results with those recommended by the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, analytical and cross-sectional study including 8,000 patients submitted to mammography in the period between April 2010 and March 2011, whose results were subjected to an internal audit. The patients were followed-up until December 2012. RESULTS: The radiological classification of 7,249 screening mammograms, according to BI-RADS, was the following: category 0 (1.43%), 1 (7.82%), 2 (80.76%), 3 (8.35%), 4 (1.46%), 5 (0.15%) and 6 (0.03%). The breast cancer detection ratio was 4.8 cases per 1,000 mammograms. Ductal carcinoma in situ was found in 22.8% of cases. Positive predictive values for categories 3, 4 and 5 were 1.3%, 41.3% and 100%, respectively. In the present study, the sensitivity of the method was 97.1% and specificity, 97.4%. CONCLUSION: The complete internal audit of a service of mammography is essential to evaluate the quality of such service, which reflects on an early breast cancer detection and reduction of mortality rates.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Mammographic screening; BI-RADS; Audit of mammography service; Percutaneous biopsy; Positive predictive value.

OBJECTIVE: To present the current recommendations for breast cancer screening in Brazil, as devised by the Brazilian College of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging, the Brazilian Breast Disease Society, and the Brazilian Federation of Gynecological and Obstetrical Associations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed scientific studies available in the Medline and Lilacs databases. In the absence of evidence, the recommendations reflected the consensus of a panel of experts. RECOMMENDATIONS: Annual mammography screening is recommended for women 40–74 years of age. Among women ≥ 75 years of age, annual mammography screening should be reserved for those with an expected survival > 7 years. Complementary ultrasound should be considered for women with dense breasts. Complementary magnetic resonance imaging is recommended for women at high risk. When available, an advanced form of mammography known as tomosynthesis can be considered as a means of screening for breast cancer.

Keywords: Breast cancer screening; Mammography; Ultrasound; Magnetic resonance imaging.