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.
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 cancerpatients, 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.
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
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
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
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
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