Literature DB >> 22619635

Observer Variability of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Lexicon for Mammography.

Zehra H Adibelli1, Ruken Ergenc, Ozgur Oztekin, Suheyla Ecevit, Gokhan Unal, Yusuf Abal.   

Abstract

AIM: We aimed to determine the inter- and intra-observer variabilities between breast radiologists and a general radiologist in categorizing mammographic lesions using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), and to evaluate the effects of the histopathologic results on the variability.
METHODS: Mammograms from 142 women who underwent biopsy were evaluated. 3 breast radiologists (2 with >10 years experience and 1 with 1 year experience) and 1 general radiologist retrospectively reviewed mammograms twice within an 8-week interval. Inter- and intra-observer variabilities were assessed with Cohen's kappa statistic, and the positive predictive value for final assessments was calculated.
RESULTS: The intra-observer variability for mass and calcification assessments was moderate to almost perfect (kappa values: 0.41-1) for breast imagers and was fair to substantial for the general radiologist (kappa values: 0.21-0.8). Inter-observer agreement between the breast imagers was higher than between the breast and general radiologists. There was no apparent difference in agreement between observers for malignant and benign subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: The differences in intra- and inter-observer agreement between the breast imagers and the general radiologist affirm the utility of the BI-RADS lexicon. The histopathologic results of the lesions do not affect the agreement. BI-RADS is a simple and adequate tool for assessing mammograms, even after only 1 year of training.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 22619635      PMCID: PMC3357160          DOI: 10.1159/000272277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)        ISSN: 1661-3791            Impact factor:   2.860


  14 in total

1.  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

2.  Concordance of mammographic classifications of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis: Utility of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (fourth edition).

Authors:  Z Sumru Coşar; Meltem Cetin; Tuba Kizil Tepe; Recep Cetin; Aliye C Zarali
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.605

3.  Reader variability in reporting breast imaging according to BI-RADS assessment categories (the Florence experience).

Authors:  S Ciatto; N Houssami; A Apruzzese; E Bassetti; B Brancato; F Carozzi; S Catarzi; M P Lamberini; G Marcelli; R Pellizzoni; B Pesce; G Risso; F Russo; A Scorsolini
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories.

Authors:  S Ciatto; N Houssami; A Apruzzese; E Bassetti; B Brancato; F Carozzi; S Catarzi; M P Lamberini; G Marcelli; R Pellizzoni; B Pesce; G Risso; F Russo; A Scorsolini
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.380

5.  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

6.  Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Laura E Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Virginia L Ernster; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Nicole Urban; Mark B Dignan; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  The American College of Radiology mammography lexicon: an initial attempt to standardize terminology.

Authors:  C J D'Orsi
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description.

Authors:  J A Baker; P J Kornguth; C E Floyd
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  1 in total

1.  Incidental Breast Lesions Identified by (18)F-FDG PET/CT: Which Clinical Variables Differentiate between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions?

Authors:  Kyung Min Shin; Hye Jung Kim; Su Jin Jung; Hyo Soon Lim; Sang Woo Lee; Seung Hyun Cho; Yun-Jin Jang; Hui Joong Lee; Gab Chul Kim; Jin Hyang Jung; Ji Young Park
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 3.588

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.