Youichi Machida1,2, Akiko Shimauchi3, Yoshihide Kanemaki3,4, Takao Igarashi3,5, Marie Harada3, Eisuke Fukuma6. 1. Kameda Kyobashi Clinic, Tokyo Square Garden 4F, 3-1-1 Kyobashi, Chuo City, Tokyo, 104-0031, Japan. machida.yoichi@kameda.jp. 2. Kameda Medical Center, 929 Higashi-cho, Kamogawa City, Chiba, 296-0041, Japan. machida.yoichi@kameda.jp. 3. Kameda Kyobashi Clinic, Tokyo Square Garden 4F, 3-1-1 Kyobashi, Chuo City, Tokyo, 104-0031, Japan. 4. St. Marianna University School of Medicine Breast and Imaging Center, 6-7-2 Mampukuji, Aso-ku, Kawasaki City, Kanagawa, 215-0004, Japan. 5. The Jikei University School of Medicine, 3-2-58, Nishi-Shimbashi, Minato City, Tokyo, 105-8461, Japan. 6. Kameda Medical Center, 929 Higashi-cho, Kamogawa City, Chiba, 296-0041, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been introduced in Western countries primarily for populations with an elevated risk of breast cancer. We conducted an observer study involving an experimental abbreviated MRI interpretation by Japanese radiologists, using an enriched cohort, to evaluate its feasibility in a screening setting. METHODS: Eighty-eight breast MRI examinations including 28 cases with breast cancer were enrolled as study subjects. Two radiologists independently reviewed the MR images, first with only two sequences (abbreviated series), and then with all of the images provided for clinical care (full diagnostic series). The difference in sensitivity and specificity was evaluated using McNemar's test. Interobserver agreement was assessed by calculating κ values. RESULTS: A total of 176 breasts including 31 cancers (3 cases with bilateral disease) were included. No significant difference in sensitivity or specificity for either observer was observed between the abbreviated series and the full diagnostic series (observer 1: sensitivity 87.1 vs 87.1 %, p = 1.00, specificity 91.7 vs 90.3 %, p = 0.791; observer 2: sensitivity 93.5 vs 96.8 %, p = 1.00, specificity 83.4 vs 89.7 %, p = 0.064). Moderate interobserver agreement (κ = 0.56) was observed for the abbreviated series, whereas substantial agreement (κ = 0.69) was observed for the full diagnostic series. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of the abbreviated breast MRI was not inferior to that of the conventional full diagnostic interpretation, although a slight decline in interobserver agreement was observed.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been introduced in Western countries primarily for populations with an elevated risk of breast cancer. We conducted an observer study involving an experimental abbreviated MRI interpretation by Japanese radiologists, using an enriched cohort, to evaluate its feasibility in a screening setting. METHODS: Eighty-eight breast MRI examinations including 28 cases with breast cancer were enrolled as study subjects. Two radiologists independently reviewed the MR images, first with only two sequences (abbreviated series), and then with all of the images provided for clinical care (full diagnostic series). The difference in sensitivity and specificity was evaluated using McNemar's test. Interobserver agreement was assessed by calculating κ values. RESULTS: A total of 176 breasts including 31 cancers (3 cases with bilateral disease) were included. No significant difference in sensitivity or specificity for either observer was observed between the abbreviated series and the full diagnostic series (observer 1: sensitivity 87.1 vs 87.1 %, p = 1.00, specificity 91.7 vs 90.3 %, p = 0.791; observer 2: sensitivity 93.5 vs 96.8 %, p = 1.00, specificity 83.4 vs 89.7 %, p = 0.064). Moderate interobserver agreement (κ = 0.56) was observed for the abbreviated series, whereas substantial agreement (κ = 0.69) was observed for the full diagnostic series. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of the abbreviated breast MRI was not inferior to that of the conventional full diagnostic interpretation, although a slight decline in interobserver agreement was observed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Abbreviated breast MRI; Breast cancer; Diagnostic accuracy; Interobserver agreement; Observer study
Authors: Marion E Scoggins; Banu K Arun; Rosalind P Candelaria; Mark J Dryden; Wei Wei; Jong Bum Son; Jingfei Ma; Basak E Dogan Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Ko Woon Park; Sol Bee Han; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Sook Ko; Ji Soo Choi; Sun Jung Rhee; Eun Young Ko Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Mi-Ri Kwon; Eun Young Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Sook Ko; Ji Soo Choi; Ko Woon Park Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.817