Literature DB >> 21427351

Interpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer reproducibility.

Deepa Narayanan1, Kathleen S Madsen, Judith E Kalinyak, Wendie A Berg.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In preparation for a multicenter trial of positron emission mammography (PEM) and MRI in women with newly diagnosed cancer, the two purposes of this study were to validate training of breast imagers in standardized interpretation of PEM and to validate performance of the same specialists interpreting MRI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2-hour didactic module was developed to train Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologist observers to interpret PEM images, consisting of a sample feature analysis lexicon analogous to BI-RADS and 12 sample cases. Observers were then asked to review separate interpretive skills tasks for PEM (49 breasts, 20 [41%] of which were malignant) and MRI (32 breasts, 11 [34%] of which were malignant), describe findings, and give assessments analogous to BI-RADS (category 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, or 5). Demographic experience variables were collected for 36 observers from 15 sites. Performance against histopathologic truth was determined, and interobserver agreement for classifying features and final assessments was evaluated using kappa statistics.
RESULTS: Across 36 observers, mean sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for PEM were 96% (range, 75-100%), 84% (range, 66-97%), and 0.95 (range, 0.82-1.0), respectively. Mean sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for the MRI task were 82% (range, 45-100%), 67% (range, 38-91%), and 0.80 (range, 0.48-0.96), respectively. Interobserver agreement for PEM findings ranged from moderate to substantial, with kappa values of 0.57 for lesion type and 0.63 for final assessments.
CONCLUSION: With minimal training, experienced breast imagers showed high performance in interpreting PEM images. Performance in MRI interpretation by the same observers validated expected clinical practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21427351      PMCID: PMC4032178          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  19 in total

1.  Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance.

Authors:  C M Rutter; S Taplin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies.

Authors:  D M Ikeda; N M Hylton; K Kinkel; M G Hochman; C K Kuhl; W A Kaiser; J C Weinreb; S F Smazal; H Degani; P Viehweg; J Barclay; M D Schnall
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?

Authors:  C K Kuhl; P Mielcareck; S Klaschik; C Leutner; E Wardelmann; J Gieseke; H H Schild
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Interpretation of positron emission mammography: feature analysis and rates of malignancy.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Kathleen S Madsen; Judith E Kalinyak; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Do T2-weighted pulse sequences help with the differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions in dynamic breast MRI?

Authors:  C K Kuhl; S Klaschik; P Mielcarek; J Gieseke; E Wardelmann; H H Schild
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Observer variability in the interpretation of contrast enhanced MRI of the breast.

Authors:  S Mussurakis; D L Buckley; A M Coady; L W Turnbull; A Horsman
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

Authors:  Edward A Sickles; Dulcy E Wolverton; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Melissa Joo-Young Lee; Jennifer B Kaplan; Linda R LaTrenta; Jennifer H Menell; Andrea F Abramson; Stephen M Dashnaw; Douglas J Ballon; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner.

Authors:  Tung-Hsin Wu; Yung-Hui Huang; Jason J S Lee; Shih-Yuan Wang; Su-Cheng Wang; Cheng-Tau Su; Liang-Kung Chen; Tieh-Chi Chu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2003-10-08       Impact factor: 9.236

View more
  19 in total

1.  The importance of standardized interpretation of molecular breast imaging with dedicated gamma cameras.

Authors:  Orazio Schillaci
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  Amy Lynn Conners; Carrie B Hruska; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Deborah J Rhodes; Judy C Boughey; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 9.236

3.  Clinical utility of positron emission mammography.

Authors:  Shannon B Glass; Zeeshan A Shah
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2013-07

Review 4.  Use of Breast-Specific PET Scanners and Comparison with MR Imaging.

Authors:  Deepa Narayanan; Wendie A Berg
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.266

5.  Improved abdominal MRI in non-breath-holding children using a radial k-space sampling technique.

Authors:  Jong Hyuk Lee; Young Hun Choi; Jung Eun Cheon; So Mi Lee; Hyun Hae Cho; Su Mi Shin; Woo Sun Kim; In One Kim
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-01-24

Review 6.  Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in instrumentation into clinical use.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Impact of Using Uniform Attenuation Coefficients for Heterogeneously Dense Breasts in a Dedicated Breast PET/X-ray Scanner.

Authors:  Lawrence R MacDonald; Joseph Y Lo; Gregory M Sturgeon; Chengeng Zeng; Robert L Harrison; Paul E Kinahan; William Paul Segars
Journal:  IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci       Date:  2020-04-29

8.  Can positron emission mammography help to identify clinically significant breast cancer in women with suspicious calcifications on mammography?

Authors:  Almir G V Bitencourt; Eduardo N P Lima; Bruna R C Macedo; Jorge L F A Conrado; Elvira F Marques; Rubens Chojniak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  18F-FDG PET of the hands with a dedicated high-resolution PEM system (arthro-PET): correlation with PET/CT, radiography and clinical parameters.

Authors:  Joyce C Mhlanga; John A Carrino; Martin Lodge; Hao Wang; Richard L Wahl
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Breast cancer detection using high-resolution breast PET compared to whole-body PET or PET/CT.

Authors:  Judith E Kalinyak; Wendie A Berg; Kathy Schilling; Kathleen S Madsen; Deepa Narayanan; Marie Tartar
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.