What does Category 3 mean on a mammogram?

BI-RADS 3 is an intermediate category in the breast imaging reporting and data system. A finding placed in this category is considered probably benign, with a risk of malignancy of > 0% and ≤ 2%4.

Índice Show

What is a BI-RADS assessment category?
What do the BI-RADS categories mean?
BI-RADS reporting breast density

BI-RADS 3 should not be utilized in the screening setting. It should be reserved for the diagnostic setting, such as when patients are recalled from screening for additional views (ie, following BI-RADS 0) or when patients present with a palpable lump.

The BI-RADS Atlas, fifth edition, contains three mammographic findings that should be categorized as BI-RADS 3 4,6:

The following sonographic findings may be categorized as BI-RADS 3 6:

complicated cyst with uniform low-level echoes
microlobulated or oval mass composed of clustered microcysts (although BI-RADS 2 may be appropriate if the appearance is classic 7)
hypoechoic mass, circumscribed, oval, parallel, without posterior features or with minimal posterior enhancement
hyperechoic mass with central hypoechoic to anechoic components and surrounding edema consistent with, but not diagnostic of, fat necrosis
refraction shadowing without an associated mass
architectural distortion thought to be due to postsurgical scar

BI-RADS 3 carries a management recommendation of short-term follow-up. The recommendation should be for the modality or modalities that best demonstrated the initial finding. While follow-up protocols differ across practices, a common schedule is at 6, 12, and 24 months. Once stability is documented for at least two, and at most three years, the finding can be downgraded to BI-RADS 2 (benign). If the finding develops suspicious features such as growth, non-circumscribed margins, or suspicious calcification morphology, then a BI-RADS 4 or BI-RADS 5 classification should be considered.

1. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS et-al. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management--follow-up and outcome. Radiology. 2008;248 (3): 773-81. doi:10.1148/radiol.2483071786 - Pubmed citation
2. Hall FM. Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. Radiology. 2002;225 (3): 918-9. doi:10.1148/radiol.2253020507 - Pubmed citation
3. Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA et-al. US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics. 2010;30 (5): 1199-213. doi:10.1148/rg.305095144 - Pubmed citation
4. ACR. ACR BI-RADS Atlas. AMER COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY. ISBN:155903016X. Read it at Google Books - Find it at Amazon
5. Lee KA, Talati N, Oudsema R, Steinberger S, Margolies LR. BI-RADS 3: Current and Future Use of Probably Benign. (2018) Current radiology reports. 6 (2): 5. doi:10.1007/s40134-018-0266-8 - Pubmed
6. Messinger J, Crawford S, Roland L, Mizuguchi S. Inappropriate use of BI-RADS Category 3: Learning from mistakes. (2019) Applied Radiology. 48(1):28-33. Appl Radiol
7. Heather I. Greenwood, Amie Y. Lee, Iryna V. Lobach, Bianca M. Carpentier, Rita I. Freimanis, Loretta M. Strachowski. Clustered Microcysts on Breast Ultrasound: What Is an Appropriate Management Recommendation?. (2017) American Journal of Roentgenology. 209 (6): W395-W399. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.17813 - Pubmed

A doctor called a radiologist will categorize your mammogram results using a numbered system. Talk to your doctor about your mammogram results and what you need to do next.

What is a BI-RADS assessment category?

Doctors use a standard system to describe mammogram findings and results. This system (called the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System or BI-RADS) sorts the results into categories numbered 0 through 6.

With these categories, doctors can describe what they find on a mammogram using the same words and terms. This makes communicating about the test results and following up after the tests easier.

(Note: These same BI-RADS categories can also be used to describe the results of a breast ultrasound or breast MRI exam. However, the recommended next steps after these tests might be slightly different.)

What do the BI-RADS categories mean?

Category	Definition	What it means
0	Incomplete - Additional imaging evaluation and/or comparison to prior mammograms (or other imaging tests) is needed.	This means the radiologist may have seen a possible abnormality, but it was not clear and you will need more tests, such as another mammogram with the use of spot compression (applying compression to a smaller area when doing the mammogram), magnified views, special mammogram views, and/or ultrasound. This may also suggest that the radiologist wants to compare your new mammogram with older ones to see if there have been changes in the area over time.
1	Negative	This is a normal test result. Your breasts look the same (they are symmetrical) with no masses (lumps), distorted structures, or suspicious calcifications. In this case, negative means nothing new or abnormal was found.
2	Benign (non-cancerous) finding	This is also a negative test result (there’s no sign of cancer), but the radiologist chooses to describe a finding that is not cancer, such as benign calcifications, masses, or lymph nodes in the breast. This can also be used to describe changes from a prior procedure (such as a biopsy) in the breast. This ensures that others who look at the mammogram in the future will not misinterpret the benign finding as suspicious.
3	Probably benign finding – Follow-up in a short time frame is suggested	A finding in this category has a very low (no more than 2%) chance of being cancer. It is not expected to change over time. But since it’s not proven to be benign, it’s helpful to be extra safe and see if the area in question does change over time. You will likely need follow-up with repeat imaging in 6 to 12 months and regularly after that until the finding is known to be stable (usually at least 2 years). This approach helps avoid unnecessary biopsies, but if the area does change over time, it still allows for early diagnosis.
4	Suspicious abnormality – Biopsy should be considered	These findings do not definitely look like cancer but could be cancer. The radiologist is concerned enough to recommend a biopsy. The findings in this category can have a wide range of suspicion levels. For this reason, this category is often divided further: 4A: Finding with a low likelihood of being cancer (more than 2% but no more than 10%) 4B: Finding with a moderate likelihood of being cancer (more than 10% but no more than 50%) 4C: Finding with a high likelihood of being cancer (more than 50% but less than 95%), but not as high as Category 5
5	Highly suggestive of malignancy – Appropriate action should be taken	The findings look like cancer and have a high chance (at least 95%) of being cancer. Biopsy is very strongly recommended.
6	Known biopsy-proven malignancy – Appropriate action should be taken	This category is only used for findings on a mammogram (or ultrasound or MRI) that have already been shown to be cancer by a previous biopsy. Imaging may be used in this way to see how well the cancer is responding to treatment.

BI-RADS reporting breast density

Your mammogram report will also include an assessment of your breast density, which is a description of how much fibrous and glandular tissue is in your breasts, as compared to fatty tissue. The denser your breasts, the harder it can be to see abnormal areas on mammograms. (Having dense breasts also slightly raises your risk of getting breast cancer.)

BI-RADS classifies breast density into 4 groups, which are described in Breast Density and Your Mammogram Report.

1. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1991;179(2):463–468. doi: 10.1148/radiology.179.2.2014293. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. American College of Radiology . Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 5. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013. [Google Scholar]

3. D’Orsi C, Bassett L, Berg W, et al.et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS—breast imaging Atlas. In: D’Orsi C, Mendelson E, Ikeda D, et al.et al., editors. BI-RADS: mammography. 4. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003. pp. 7–201. [Google Scholar]

4. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology. 1991;178(1):155–158. doi: 10.1148/radiology.178.1.1984295. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L, Salas D, Ruiz-Perales F, Cuevas D, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology. 2001;219(2):475–483. doi: 10.1148/radiology.219.2.r01ma11475. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology. 1992;184(2):409–414. doi: 10.1148/radiology.184.2.1620838. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Michaels AY, Chung CSW, Frost EP, Birdwell RL, Giess CS. Interobserver variability in upgraded and non-upgraded BI-RADS 3 lesions. Clin Radiol. 2017;72(8):694.e1–694.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.03.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Grimm LJ, Anderson AL, Baker JA, Johnson KS, Walsh R, Yoon SC, et al. Interobserver variability between breast imagers using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS MRI Lexicon. AJR. 2015;204(5):1120–1124. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13047. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Ortiz-Perez T, Trevino EJ, Sepulveda KA, Hilsenbeck SG, Wang T, Sedgwick EL. Does formal instruction about the BI-RADS ultrasound lexicon result in improved appropriate use of the lexicon? AJR. 2013;201(2):456–461. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10157. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Chung CS, Giess CS, Gombos EC, Frost EP, Yeh ED, Raza S, et al. Patient compliance and diagnostic yield of 18-month unilateral follow-up in surveillance of probably benign mammographic lesions. AJR. 2014;202(4):922–927. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11137. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999;211(3):845–850. doi: 10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn31845. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR. 2002;179(3):691–695. doi: 10.2214/ajr.179.3.1790691. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Sickles EA. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology. 1999;213(1):11–14. doi: 10.1148/radiology.213.1.r99oc4611. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Adler DD, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. AJR. 1990;155(6):1195–1201. doi: 10.2214/ajr.155.6.2122665. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Leung JW, Sickles EA. The probably benign assessment. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(5):773–789. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.06.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. Lev-Toaff AS, Feig SA, Saitas VL, Finkel GC, Schwartz GF. Stability of malignant breast microcalcifications. Radiology. 1994;192(1):153–156. doi: 10.1148/radiology.192.1.8208928. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E, Bhargavan M. Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology. 2001;221(2):495–503. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2212010164. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Sickles EA. Breast masses: mammographic evaluation. Radiology. 1989;173(2):297–303. doi: 10.1148/radiology.173.2.2678242. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Bassett LW. Imaging of breast masses. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(4):669–691. doi: 10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70193-7. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology. 2007;244(1):87–93. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2441060258. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Majid AS, de Paredes ES, Doherty RD, Sharma NR, Salvador X. Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls. Radiographics. 2003;23(4):881–895. doi: 10.1148/rg.234025083. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. •• Michaels AY, Birdwell RL, Chung CS, Frost EP, Giess CS. Assessment and management of challenging BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. Radiographics. 2016;36(5):1261–72. If a benign-appearing solid mass grows, the interval change supersedes benign morphology and biopsy is warranted despite probably benign features. Although interval change is a key feature of malignancy, many benign lesions also change and therefore, use of prior imaging and obtaining an accurate clinical history is important.

23. Leung JW, Sickles EA. Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings. AJR. 2007;188(3):667–675. doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.0413. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Baum JK, Hanna LG, Acharyya S, Mahoney MC, Conant EF, Bassett LW, et al. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology imaging network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. Radiology. 2011;260(1):61–67. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101285. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Duijm LE, Zaat JO, Guit GL. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions in general practice: the role of follow-up mammography. Br J Gen Pract. 1998;48(432):1421–1423. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, van Beek M, de Koning HJ. Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(10):1795–1799. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602158. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L, Goehler A, Michalski MH, Geisel JL, et al. Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology. 2016;281(1):54–61. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151999. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. •• McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, Conant EF. BI-RADS category 3 comparison: probably benign category after recall from screening before and after implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2017:162837. Screening with digital breast tomosynthesis decreased the overall number of patients recommended for short interval follow-up by a mean of 2.4 women per 1000, compared to screening with digital mammography.

29. Destounis S, Arieno A, Morgan R. New York state breast density mandate: follow-up data with screening sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36:2511–2517. doi: 10.1002/jum.14294. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265(1):59–69. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120621. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Weigert JM. The Connecticut experiment; the third installment: 4 years of screening women with dense breasts with bilateral ultrasound. Breast J. 2017;23(1):34–39. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12678. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2012;18(6):517–522. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Weigert JM, Bertrand ML, Lanzkowsky L, Stern LH, Kieper DA. Results of a multicenter patient registry to determine the clinical impact of breast-specific gamma imaging, a molecular breast imaging technique. AJR. 2012;198(1):W69–W75. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.6105. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Bohm-Velez M, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151–2163. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. • Chae EY, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ, Kim HH. Reassessment and follow-up results of BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected on screening breast ultrasound. AJR. 2016;206(3):666–72. The frequency of ultrasound BI-RADS 3 was high (14.6%) while the malignancy rate was very low (0.7%), particularly for patients with normal mammograms. When the ACRIN 6666 protocol was strictly applied, nearly 20% of lesions were re-categorized. No malignancy was found in 213 reassessed BI-RADS category 2 lesions and 178 of these 213 lesions were downgraded because they were anechoic consistent with simple cysts. Multiplicity and analysis of lesion echogenicity and margin should be scrutinized to keep the rate of BI-RADS 3 low.

36. Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Kim H. Evaluation of screening whole-breast sonography as a supplemental tool in conjunction with mammography in women with dense breasts. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32(9):1573–1578. doi: 10.7863/ultra.32.9.1573. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Berg WA. Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial. Radiology. 2013;269(3):701–712. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122829. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR. 2005;184(4):1260–1265. doi: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841260. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL. US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics. 2010;30(5):1199–1213. doi: 10.1148/rg.305095144. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. 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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2483071786. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Marcon M, Frauenfelder T, Becker AS, Dedes KJ, Boss A. First ultrasound diagnosis of BI-RADS 3 lesions in young patients: can 6-months follow-up be sufficient to assess stability? Eur J Radiol. 2017;89:226–233. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, Vo TT, Boyd BA. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR. 2001;177(5):1167–1170. doi: 10.2214/ajr.177.5.1771167. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196(1):123–134. doi: 10.1148/radiology.196.1.7784555. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Greenwood HI, Lee AY, Lobach IV, Carpentier BM, Freimanis RI, Strachowski LM. Clustered microcysts on breast ultrasound: what is an appropriate management recommendation? AJR. 2017;209:395–399. doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.17813. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology. 2001;219(1):186–191. doi: 10.1148/radiology.219.1.r01ap35186. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Multiple bilateral circumscribed masses at screening breast US: consider annual follow-up. Radiology. 2013;268(3):673–683. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122251. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Gordon PB, Gagnon FA, Lanzkowsky L. Solid breast masses diagnosed as fibroadenoma at fine-needle aspiration biopsy: acceptable rates of growth at long-term follow-up. Radiology. 2003;229(1):233–238. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2291010282. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Jang JY, Kim SM, Kim JH, Jang M, La Yun B, Lee JY, et al. Clinical significance of interval changes in breast lesions initially categorized as probably benign on breast ultrasound. Medicine. 2017;96(12):e6415. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006415. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Price ER, Sickles EA, Yitta S, Brasic N, Yeh MJ, Allen IE, et al. Use of the probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) assessment for masses on breast MRI: is it transferable to general clinical practice? Breast J. 2017 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Mahoney MC, Gatsonis C, Hanna L, DeMartini WB, Lehman C. Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;264(1):51–58. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12110619. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR. 2003;180(4):901–910. doi: 10.2214/ajr.180.4.1800901. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

52. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, Kaplan JB, Abramson AF, Menell JH, et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR. 2003;180(2):333–341. doi: 10.2214/ajr.180.2.1800333. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. •• Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord SJ, Warren RM, Dixon JM, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3248–58. BI-RADS 3 is appropriate for a newly diagnosed mass with round or oval shape, circumscribed margins and type I or type II curve. BI-RADS 3 may be assigned to nonmass enhancement with focal or regional distribution and homogeneous internal enhancement. Any interval change in size, morphology or enhancement is regarded as indicative of malignancy.

54. Spick C, Szolar DH, Baltzer PA, Tillich M, Reittner P, Preidler KW, et al. Rate of malignancy in MRI-detected probably benign (BI-RADS 3) lesions. AJR. 2014;202(3):684–689. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.10928. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Yuen S, Uematsu T, Kasami M, Tanaka K, Kimura K, Sanuki J, et al. Breast carcinomas with strong high-signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images: pathological characteristics and differential diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(3):502–510. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20845. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Okafuji T, Yabuuchi H, Sakai S, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Inoue T, et al. MR imaging features of pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60(3):405–413. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238(1):42–53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2381042117. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

58. Bahrs SD, Baur A, Hattermann V, Hahn M, Vogel U, Claussen CD, et al. BI-RADS® 3 lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: is an initial short-interval follow-up necessary? Acta Radiol. 2014;55(3):260–265. doi: 10.1177/0284185113501304. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Saini MH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. AJR. 2009;193(3):861–867. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.2096. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Ha R, Sung J, Lee C, Comstock C, Wynn R, Morris E. Characteristics and outcome of enhancing foci followed on breast MRI with management implications. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(7):715–720. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2014.02.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. Ductal enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. AJR. 2003;181(2):519–525. doi: 10.2214/ajr.181.2.1810519. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Sung JS, Lee CH, Morris EA, Comstock CE, Dershaw DD. Patient follow-up after concordant histologically benign imaging-guided biopsy of MRI-detected lesions. AJR. 2012;198(6):1464–1469. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7455. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Li J, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Kaplan J, Morris EA. MRI follow-up after concordant, histologically benign diagnosis of breast lesions sampled by MRI-guided biopsy. AJR. 2009;193(3):850–855. doi: 10.2214/AJR.08.2226. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(1):18–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.022. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

65. Benndorf M, Wu Y, Burnside ES. A history of breast cancer and older age allow risk stratification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 ratings in the diagnostic setting. Clin Imaging. 2016;40(2):200–204. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.10.011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

66. Linda A, Zuiani C, Londero V, Di Gaetano E, Dal Col A, Girometti R, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) microcalcifications of the breast. Radiol Med. 2014;119(6):393–399. doi: 10.1007/s11547-013-0361-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

67. Cho N, Lim J, Moon WK. Usefulness of ultrasound elastography in reducing the number of breast imaging reporting and data system category 3 lesions on ultrasonography. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(2):98–104. doi: 10.14366/usg.13024. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

68. Dijkstra H, Dorrius MD, Wielema M, Pijnappel RM, Oudkerk M, Sijens PE. Quantitative DWI implemented after DCE-MRI yields increased specificity for BI-RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;44(6):1642–1649. doi: 10.1002/jmri.25331. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. Lee AY, Joe BN, Price ER. The predicament of the probably benign breast MRI: should we rely on intuition? Breast J. 2017;23(5):501–503. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12788. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

70. Knogler T, Homolka P, Hoernig M, Leithner R, Langs G, Waitzbauer M, et al. Application of BI-RADS descriptors in contrast-enhanced dual-energy mammography: comparison with MRI. Breast Care. 2017;12(4):212–216. doi: 10.1159/000478899. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

71. Conners AL, Hruska CB, Tortorelli CL, Maxwell RW, Rhodes DJ, Boughey JC, et al. Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(6):971–982. doi: 10.1007/s00259-011-2054-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

72. Conners AL, Maxwell RW, Tortorelli CL, Hruska CB, Rhodes DJ, Boughey JC, et al. Gamma camera breast imaging lexicon. AJR. 2012;199(6):W767–W774. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.8298. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

73. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology. 2000;215(1):267–279. doi: 10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00ap01267. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

74. Liberman L, Morris EA, Benton CL, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women. Cancer. 2003;98(2):377–388. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11491. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

75. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(5):427–437. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa031759. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

76. Hartman AR, Daniel BL, Kurian AW, Mills MA, Nowels KW, Dirbas FM, et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100(3):479–489. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11926. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

77. Sadowski EA, Kelcz F. Frequency of malignancy in lesions classified as probably benign after dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI examination. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;21(5):556–564. doi: 10.1002/jmri.20312. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

78. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469–8476. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

79. Eby PR, Demartini WB, Peacock S, Rosen EL, Lauro B, Lehman CD. Cancer yield of probably benign breast MR examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(4):950–955. doi: 10.1002/jmri.21123. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

80. Weinstein SP, Hanna LG, Gatsonis C, Schnall MD, Rosen MA, Lehman CD. Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: findings from ACRIN 6667. Radiology. 2010;255(3):731–737. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10081712. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

81. Hauth E, Umutlu L, Kümmel S, Kimmig R, Forsting M. Follow-up of probably benign lesions (BI-RADS 3 category) in breast MR imaging. Breast J. 2010;16(3):297–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00916.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

82. Lourenco AP, Chung MT, Mainiero MB. Probably benign breast MRI lesions: frequency, lesion type, and rate of malignancy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(4):789–794. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24221. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

83. •• Grimm LJ, Anderson AL, Baker JA, Johnson KS, Walsh R, Yoon SC, et al. Frequency of malignancy and imaging characteristics of probably benign lesions seen at Breast MRI. AJR. 2015;205(2):442–7. The cancer rate for BI-RADS 3 lesions was 2.5% and all cancers were in women with a genetic mutation or personal history of breast cancer.

84. Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL, Poole PS, Sippo DA, Giess CS. Characteristics, malignancy rate, and follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 Lesions identified at breast MR imaging: implications for MR image interpretation and management. Radiology. 2016;280(3):707–715. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151548. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]