Maria Adele Marino1,2, Paola Clauser1,3, Ramona Woitek1, Georg J Wengert1, Panagiotis Kapetas1, Maria Bernathova1, Katja Pinker-Domenig1, Thomas H Helbich1, Klaus Preidler4, Pascal A T Baltzer5. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Floor 7F Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphologic and Functional Imaging, Policlinico Universitario G. Martino, University of Messina, Messina, Italy. 3. Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, "S. Maria della Misericordia", P.le Santa Maria della Misericordia, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 4. Diagnosezentrum Meidling, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Floor 7F Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. pascal.baltzer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of a scoring system (Tree) on inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance in breast MRI reading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved, single-centre study included 100 patients with 121 consecutive histopathologically verified lesions (52 malignant, 68 benign). Four breast radiologists with different levels of MRI experience and blinded to histopathology retrospectively evaluated all examinations. Readers independently applied two methods to classify breast lesions: BI-RADS and Tree. BI-RADS provides a reporting lexicon that is empirically translated into likelihoods of malignancy; Tree is a scoring system that results in a diagnostic category. Readings were compared by ROC analysis and kappa statistics. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement was substantial to almost perfect (kappa: 0.643-0.896) for Tree and moderate (kappa: 0.455-0.657) for BI-RADS. Diagnostic performance using Tree (AUC: 0.889-0.943) was similar to BI-RADS (AUC: 0.872-0.953). Less experienced radiologists achieved AUC: improvements up to 4.7 % using Tree (P-values: 0.042-0.698); an expert's performance did not change (P = 0.526). The least experienced reader improved in specificity using Tree (16 %, P = 0.001). No further sensitivity and specificity differences were found (P > 0.1). CONCLUSION: The Tree scoring system improves inter-reader agreement and achieves a diagnostic performance similar to that of BI-RADS. Less experienced radiologists, in particular, benefit from Tree. KEY POINTS: • The Tree scoring system shows high diagnostic accuracy in mass and non-mass lesions. • The Tree scoring system reduces inter-reader variability related to reader experience. • The Tree scoring system improves diagnostic accuracy in non-expert readers.
PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of a scoring system (Tree) on inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance in breast MRI reading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This IRB-approved, single-centre study included 100 patients with 121 consecutive histopathologically verified lesions (52 malignant, 68 benign). Four breast radiologists with different levels of MRI experience and blinded to histopathology retrospectively evaluated all examinations. Readers independently applied two methods to classify breast lesions: BI-RADS and Tree. BI-RADS provides a reporting lexicon that is empirically translated into likelihoods of malignancy; Tree is a scoring system that results in a diagnostic category. Readings were compared by ROC analysis and kappa statistics. RESULTS: Inter-reader agreement was substantial to almost perfect (kappa: 0.643-0.896) for Tree and moderate (kappa: 0.455-0.657) for BI-RADS. Diagnostic performance using Tree (AUC: 0.889-0.943) was similar to BI-RADS (AUC: 0.872-0.953). Less experienced radiologists achieved AUC: improvements up to 4.7 % using Tree (P-values: 0.042-0.698); an expert's performance did not change (P = 0.526). The least experienced reader improved in specificity using Tree (16 %, P = 0.001). No further sensitivity and specificity differences were found (P > 0.1). CONCLUSION: The Tree scoring system improves inter-reader agreement and achieves a diagnostic performance similar to that of BI-RADS. Less experienced radiologists, in particular, benefit from Tree. KEY POINTS: • The Tree scoring system shows high diagnostic accuracy in mass and non-mass lesions. • The Tree scoring system reduces inter-reader variability related to reader experience. • The Tree scoring system improves diagnostic accuracy in non-expert readers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; MRI; Reader experience; Scoring system; Sensitivity and specificity
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wendy B Demartini; Brenda F Kurland; Robert L Gutierrez; C Craig Blackmore; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher C Riedl; Nikolaus Luft; Clemens Bernhart; Michael Weber; Maria Bernathova; Muy-Kheng M Tea; Margaretha Rudas; Christian F Singer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ritse M Mann; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Ulrich Bick; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Andrew Evans; Eva Fallenberg; Gabor Forrai; Michael H Fuchsjäger; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Julia Camps-Herrero; Christiane K Kuhl; Laura Martincich; Federica Pediconi; Pietro Panizza; Luis J Pina; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Per Skaane; Francesco Sardanelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Füsun Taşkın; Yasemin Polat; İbrahim H Erdoğdu; Figen T Türkdoğan; Veli Suha Öztürk; Serdar Özbaş Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: D Leithner; G J Wengert; T H Helbich; S Thakur; R E Ochoa-Albiztegui; E A Morris; K Pinker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Paola Clauser; Barbara Krug; Hubert Bickel; Matthias Dietzel; Katja Pinker; Victor-Frederic Neuhaus; Maria Adele Marino; Marco Moschetta; Nicoletta Troiano; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 12.531