Literature DB >> 22289959

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

Amy Lynn Conners1, Carrie B Hruska, Cindy L Tortorelli, Robert W Maxwell, Deborah J Rhodes, Judy C Boughey, Wendie A Berg.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy using a lexicon for standardized interpretation of molecular breast imaging (MBI) studies by breast radiologists.
METHODS: An MBI lexicon was developed, including descriptors of lesion type, background uptake, and associated findings by a consensus of experts. In an institutional review board-exempted protocol, six breast imaging radiologist observers without prior MBI experience attended a 2-h MBI interpretation training session, including definitions of lexicon terminology, case examples, and ten unknown cases with expert feedback. Following training, each radiologist observer interpreted an independent set of MBI images of 50 breasts, including 20 (40%) with malignancies with a median invasive tumor size of 1.7 cm (range 1.0 to 6.3 cm). The findings were described using the lexicon and each breast was given a final assessment of 1 to 5, paralleling BI-RADS assessment categories. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were determined with core or surgical pathology results or 1-year imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Interobserver agreement for lesion-type classification, lesion and background uptake intensity, and final assessments were determined using Cohen's kappa.
RESULTS: For the six observers, median sensitivity was 1.0 (range 0.90-1.0), specificity 0.88 (range 0.83-0.97), and AUC 0.94 (range 0.93-0.98). Fair interobserver agreement was shown for background uptake (κ = 0.31). Agreement was substantial for lesion type (κ = 0.79) and non-mass distribution (κ = 0.63), and near-perfect for final assessment (κ = 0.84).
CONCLUSION: Dedicated breast imaging radiologists, newly trained to interpret MBI with the proposed lexicon, achieved high agreement and diagnostic accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22289959     DOI: 10.1007/s00259-011-2054-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging        ISSN: 1619-7070            Impact factor:   9.236


  27 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.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-03-28       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?

Authors:  Oswald Graf; Thomas H Helbich; Gottfried Hopf; Claudia Graf; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Stephen W Phillips; Dana H Whaley; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Carl J D'Orsi; Valerie P Jackson; Lawrence W Bassett; Craig A Beam; Rebecca S Lewis; Philip E Crewson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Catherine L Benton; Andrea F Abramson; D David Dershaw
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Quantification of lesion size, depth, and uptake using a dual-head molecular breast imaging system.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.

Authors:  Ximena Varas; José H Leborgne; Francisco Leborgne; Julieta Mezzera; Sylvia Jaumandreu; Felix Leborgne
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  25 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.  Classification of Background Parenchymal Uptake on Molecular Breast Imaging Using a Convolutional Neural Network.

Authors:  Rickey E Carter; Zachi I Attia; Jennifer R Geske; Amy Lynn Conners; Dana H Whaley; Katie N Hunt; Michael K O'Connor; Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2019-02

3.  Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Amy Lynn Conners; Katie N Jones; Michael K O'Connor; James P Moriarty; Judy C Boughey; Deborah J Rhodes
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  The need for standardization of nuclear cardiology reporting and data system (NCAD-RADS): Learning from coronary artery disease (CAD), breast imaging (BI), liver imaging (LI), and prostate imaging (PI) RADS.

Authors:  Majid Assadi; Erik Velez; Mohammad Hosein Najafi; Ali Gholamrezanezhad
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  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

6.  Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy.

Authors:  Eun Kyoung Choi; Jooyeon Jamie Im; Chang Suk Park; Yong-An Chung; Kijun Kim; Jin Kyoung Oh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Molecular breast imaging: an emerging modality for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag       Date:  2015-01-01

8.  Collimator design for a dedicated molecular breast imaging-guided biopsy system: proof-of-concept.

Authors:  Amanda L Weinmann; Carrie B Hruska; Amy L Conners; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  99mTc-sestamibi using a direct conversion molecular breast imaging system to assess tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer.

Authors:  David Mitchell; Carrie B Hruska; Judy C Boughey; Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler; Katie N Jones; Cindy Tortorelli; Amy Lynn Conners; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  Clin Nucl Med       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 7.794

Review 10.  Clinical usefulness of breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct modality to mammography for diagnosis of breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yu Sun; Wei Wei; Hua-Wei Yang; Jian-Lun Liu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.