OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate reader variability in screening mammograms according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment and breast density categories. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 100 mammograms was selected from a population-based breast cancer screening programme in Barcelona, Spain: 13 histopathologically confirmed breast cancers and 51 with true-negative and 36 with false-positive results. 21 expert radiologists from radiological units of breast cancer screening programmes in Catalonia, Spain, reviewed the mammography images twice within a 6-month interval. The readers described each mammography using BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories. Inter- and intraradiologist agreement was assessed using percentage of concordance and the kappa (κ) statistic. RESULTS: Fair interobserver agreement was observed for the BI-RADS assessment [κ=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.38]. When the categories were collapsed in terms of whether additional evaluation was required (Categories III, 0, IV, V) or not (I and II), moderate agreement was found (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.52-0.54). Intra-observer agreement for BI-RADS assessment was moderate using all categories (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.50-0.55) and substantial on recall (κ=0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.70). Regarding breast density, inter- and intraradiologist agreement was substantial (κ=0.73, 95% CI 0.72-0.74 and κ=0.69, 95% CI 0.68-0.70, respectively). CONCLUSION: We observed a substantial intra-observer agreement in the BI-RADS assessment but only moderate interobserver agreement. Both inter- and intra-observer agreement in mammographic interpretation of breast density was substantial. Advances in knowledge Educational efforts should be made to decrease radiologists' variability in BI-RADS assessment interpretation in population-based breast screening programmes.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate reader variability in screening mammograms according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment and breast density categories. METHODS: A stratified random sample of 100 mammograms was selected from a population-based breast cancer screening programme in Barcelona, Spain: 13 histopathologically confirmed breast cancers and 51 with true-negative and 36 with false-positive results. 21 expert radiologists from radiological units of breast cancer screening programmes in Catalonia, Spain, reviewed the mammography images twice within a 6-month interval. The readers described each mammography using BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories. Inter- and intraradiologist agreement was assessed using percentage of concordance and the kappa (κ) statistic. RESULTS: Fair interobserver agreement was observed for the BI-RADS assessment [κ=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.38]. When the categories were collapsed in terms of whether additional evaluation was required (Categories III, 0, IV, V) or not (I and II), moderate agreement was found (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.52-0.54). Intra-observer agreement for BI-RADS assessment was moderate using all categories (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.50-0.55) and substantial on recall (κ=0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.70). Regarding breast density, inter- and intraradiologist agreement was substantial (κ=0.73, 95% CI 0.72-0.74 and κ=0.69, 95% CI 0.68-0.70, respectively). CONCLUSION: We observed a substantial intra-observer agreement in the BI-RADS assessment but only moderate interobserver agreement. Both inter- and intra-observer agreement in mammographic interpretation of breast density was substantial. Advances in knowledge Educational efforts should be made to decrease radiologists' variability in BI-RADS assessment interpretation in population-based breast screening programmes.
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: B C Yankaskas; C N Klabunde; R Ancelle-Park; G Renner; H Wang; J Fracheboud; G Pou; J-L Bulliard Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2004 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; S D Frankel; S H Ominsky; E A Sickles; V Ernster Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1998-12-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Daniela Sacchetto; Lia Morra; Silvano Agliozzo; Daniela Bernardi; Tomas Björklund; Beniamino Brancato; Patrizia Bravetti; Luca A Carbonaro; Loredana Correale; Carmen Fantò; Elisabetta Favettini; Laura Martincich; Luisella Milanesio; Sara Mombelloni; Francesco Monetti; Doralba Morrone; Marco Pellegrini; Barbara Pesce; Antonella Petrillo; Gianni Saguatti; Carmen Stevanin; Rubina M Trimboli; Paola Tuttobene; Marvi Valentini; Vincenzo Marra; Alfonso Frigerio; Alberto Bert; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Shara I Feld; Kaitlin M Woo; Roxana Alexandridis; Yirong Wu; Jie Liu; Peggy Peissig; Adedayo A Onitilo; Jennifer Cox; C David Page; Elizabeth S Burnside Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Yanpeng Li; Patrick C Brennan; Warwick Lee; Carolyn Nickson; Mariusz W Pietrzyk; Elaine A Ryan Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.056