Amie Y Lee1,2, Laura Ichikawa3, Janie M Lee1, Christoph I Lee1, Wendy B DeMartini4, Bonnie N Joe2, Karen J Wernli3, Brian L Sprague5, Sally D Herschorn6, Constance D Lehman1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA. 2. 2 Present address: Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero St, UCSF Box 1667, San Francisco, CA 94115. 3. 3 Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI. 5. 5 Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 6. 6 Department of Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate concordance between BI-RADS assessments and management recommendations for breast MRI in community practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast MRI data were collected from four regional Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2005 to 2011 for women who were 18-79 years old. Assessments and recommendations were compared to determine concordance according to BI-RADS guidelines. Concordance was compared by assessment category as well as by year of examination and clinical indication. RESULTS: In all, 8283 MRI examinations were included in the analysis. Concordance was highest (93% [2475/2657]) in examinations with a BI-RADS category 2 (benign) assessment. Concordance was also high in examinations with category 1 (negative) (87% [1669/1909]), category 0 (incomplete) (83% [348/417]), category 5 (highly suggestive of malignancy) (83% [208/252]), and category 4 (suspicious) (74% [734/993]) assessments. Examinations with categories 3 (probably benign) and 6 (known biopsy-proven malignancy) assessments had the lowest concordance rates (36% [302/837] and 56% [676/1218], respectively). The most frequent discordant recommendation for a category 3 assessment was routine follow-up. The most frequent discordant recommendation for a category 6 assessment was biopsy. Concordance of assessments and management recommendations differed across clinical indications (p < 0.0001), with the lowest concordance in examinations to assess disease extent. CONCLUSION: Breast MRI BI-RADS management recommendations were most concordant for assessments of negative, incomplete, suspicious, and highly suggestive of malignancy. Lower concordance for assessments of probably benign and known biopsy-proven malignancy and for examinations performed to assess disease extent highlight areas for interventions to improve breast MRI reporting.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate concordance between BI-RADS assessments and management recommendations for breast MRI in community practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast MRI data were collected from four regional Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries from 2005 to 2011 for women who were 18-79 years old. Assessments and recommendations were compared to determine concordance according to BI-RADS guidelines. Concordance was compared by assessment category as well as by year of examination and clinical indication. RESULTS: In all, 8283 MRI examinations were included in the analysis. Concordance was highest (93% [2475/2657]) in examinations with a BI-RADS category 2 (benign) assessment. Concordance was also high in examinations with category 1 (negative) (87% [1669/1909]), category 0 (incomplete) (83% [348/417]), category 5 (highly suggestive of malignancy) (83% [208/252]), and category 4 (suspicious) (74% [734/993]) assessments. Examinations with categories 3 (probably benign) and 6 (known biopsy-proven malignancy) assessments had the lowest concordance rates (36% [302/837] and 56% [676/1218], respectively). The most frequent discordant recommendation for a category 3 assessment was routine follow-up. The most frequent discordant recommendation for a category 6 assessment was biopsy. Concordance of assessments and management recommendations differed across clinical indications (p < 0.0001), with the lowest concordance in examinations to assess disease extent. CONCLUSION: Breast MRI BI-RADS management recommendations were most concordant for assessments of negative, incomplete, suspicious, and highly suggestive of malignancy. Lower concordance for assessments of probably benign and known biopsy-proven malignancy and for examinations performed to assess disease extent highlight areas for interventions to improve breast MRI reporting.
Entities:
Keywords:
BI-RADS; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; breast MRI; breast cancer; concordance
Authors: Susan P Weinstein; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell D Schnall; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Berta M Geller; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Virginia L Ernster; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney; Mark B Dignan; Robert D Rosenberg; Nicole Urban; Yingye Zheng; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-02 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: P A Carney; B M Geller; H Moffett; M Ganger; M Sewell; W E Barlow; N Stalnaker; S H Taplin; C Sisk; V L Ernster; H A Wilkie; B Yankaskas; S P Poplack; N Urban; M M West; R D Rosenberg; S Michael; T D Mercurio; R Ballard-Barbash Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Robert L Gutierrez; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Brenda F Kurland; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peter R Eby; Wendy B Demartini; Sue Peacock; Eric L Rosen; Bridget Lauro; Constance D Lehman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 21.873