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