Literature DB >> 23601952

Interreader scoring variability in an observer study using dual-modality imaging for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts.

Karen Drukker1, Karla J Horsch, Lorenzo L Pesce, Maryellen L Giger.   

Abstract

RATIONALE AND
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate variability in the clinical assessment of breast images, we evaluated scoring behavior of radiologists in a retrospective reader study combining x-ray mammography (XRM) and three-dimensional automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts.
METHODS: The study involved 17 breast radiologists in a sequential study design with readers first interpreting XRM-alone followed by an interpretation of combined XRM + ABUS. Each interpretation included a forced Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scale and a likelihood that the woman had breast cancer. The analysis included 164 asymptomatic patients, including 31 breast cancer patients, with dense breasts and a negative screening XRM. Of interest were interreader scoring variability for XRM-alone, XRM + ABUS, and the sequential effect. In addition, a simulated double reading by pairs of readers of XRM + ABUS was investigated. Performance analysis included receiver operating characteristic analysis, percentile analysis, and κ statistics. Bootstrapping was used to determine statistical significance.
RESULTS: The median change in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve after ABUS interpretation was 0.12 (range 0.04-0.19). Reader agreement was fair with the median interreader κ being 0.26 (0.05-0.48) for XRM-alone and 0.34 (0.11-0.55) for XRM + ABUS (95% confidence interval for the difference in κ, 0.06-0.11). Simulated double reading of XRM + ABUS demonstrated tradeoffs in sensitivity and specificity, but conservative simulated double reading resulted in a significant improvement in both sensitivity (16.7%) and specificity (7.6%) with respect to XRM-alone.
CONCLUSION: A modest, but statistically significant, increase in interreader agreement was observed after interpretation of ABUS.
Copyright © 2013 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23601952      PMCID: PMC3784312          DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.02.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Radiol        ISSN: 1076-6332            Impact factor:   3.173


  24 in total

1.  Measurement of observer agreement.

Authors:  Harold L Kundel; Marcia Polansky
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-06-20       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Receiver operating characteristic rating analysis. Generalization to the population of readers and patients with the jackknife method.

Authors:  D D Dorfman; K S Berbaum; C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  The kappa statistic.

Authors:  C C Berry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-11-11       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography.

Authors:  C A Beam; D C Sullivan; P M Layde
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz method for statistical analysis of multireader, multimodality receiver operating characteristic data: validation with computer simulation.

Authors:  C A Roe; C E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts.

Authors:  V Corsetti; A Ferrari; M Ghirardi; R Bergonzini; S Bellarosa; O Angelini; C Bani; S Ciatto
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2006-04-11       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements.

Authors:  Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Jan H C L Hendriks; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-03-24       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin; Martin J Yaffe; Salomon Minkin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  4 in total

1.  Impact of lesion segmentation metrics on computer-aided diagnosis/detection in breast computed tomography.

Authors:  Hsien-Chi Kuo; Maryellen L Giger; Ingrid Reiser; Karen Drukker; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors; Kai Yang; Alexandra Edwards
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-12-24

2.  Computerized detection of breast cancer on automated breast ultrasound imaging of women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Charlene A Sennett; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Repeat Breast Ultrasound Demonstrates Utility with Added Cancer Detection in Patients following Breast Imaging Second Opinion Recommendations.

Authors:  R Jared Weinfurtner; Melissa Anne Mallory; Dayana Bermudez
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 2.269

Review 4.  Foundation and methodologies in computer-aided diagnosis systems for breast cancer detection.

Authors:  Afsaneh Jalalian; Syamsiah Mashohor; Rozi Mahmud; Babak Karasfi; M Iqbal B Saripan; Abdul Rahman B Ramli
Journal:  EXCLI J       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 4.068

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.