A Thomas Stavros1, Andrea G Freitas2, Giselle G N deMello2, Lora Barke3, Dennis McDonald4,5, Terese Kaske3,6, Ducly Wolverton3,7, Arnold Honick4,8, Daniela Stanzani2, Adriana H Padovan2, Ana Paula C Moura2, Marilia C V de Campos2. 1. University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, 6522 Camp Bullis Road, #5208, San Antonio, TX, 78256, USA. atstavros@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Fleury Medicina e Saúde, Rua Cincinato Braga 232, São Paulo, Brazil, 01333-910. 3. Invision Sally Jobe Breast Centers and Radiology Imaging Associates, 8700 E. Belleview Ave., Suite 200E, Greenwood Village, CO, 80111, USA. 4. Sutter Medical Group of the Redwoods Breast Imaging, 625 Steele Lane, Santa Rosa, CA, USA. 5. Sutter Medical Group, Sacramento, 1500 Expo Parkway, Sacramento, CA, 95815, USA. 6. Gloria Gossard Breast Health Center, 940 Central Park Drive, Steamboat Springs, CO, 80487, USA. 7. Radiology, Section Chief Breast Imaging, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Aurora, CO, USA. 8. Mercy Cedar Rapids, Department of Breast Imaging, 701 10th Street SE, Cedar Rapids, IA, 52403, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed multiple readers' positive predictive values (PPVs) for ACR BI-RADS 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 masses on ultrasound (US) pre- and post-proposed guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective, IRB-approved study included four American and four non-American readers who assigned BI-RADS categories for US images of 374 biopsy-proved masses. Readers were offered guidelines and re-classified the masses. We assessed readers' abilities to achieve ACR benchmarks BI-RADS categories pre- and post-guidelines. RESULTS: PPVs increased with BI-RADS category. The PPVs pre- and post-guidelines were 6.0% and 4.4% for category 3, 27.3% and 30.5% for category 4a, 49.9% and 51.5% for category 4b, 69.0% and 67.4% for category 4c, and 79.3% and 80.1% for category 5. Readers achieved the PPV benchmark for category 4c, but not for categories 3, 4a, 4b and 5, with no significant improvement after guidelines. Regular BI-RADS 4 subcategory users missed benchmarks by less than non-regular users. CONCLUSION: Pre- and post-guidelines, readers' PPVs increased with BI-RADS categories, ACR PPV benchmarks were achieved in category 4c, missed in other categories, especially in the critical 4a subcategory, where the PPV was too high. BI-RADS 4 subcategory users performed better than non-users. KEY POINTS: • Readers failed to achieve benchmarks for BI-RADS 4 subcategories, especially 4a. • USA and Brazilian readers performed similarly in ACR BI-RADS 4 subcategorization. • Proposed guidelines did not improve overall, USA or Brazilian reader performance. • Regularly BI-RADS 4 subcategory users performed better than did non-users. • US features distinguished between benign and malignant, not BI-RADS 4 subcategories.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed multiple readers' positive predictive values (PPVs) for ACR BI-RADS 3, 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 masses on ultrasound (US) pre- and post-proposed guidelines. METHODS: This retrospective, IRB-approved study included four American and four non-American readers who assigned BI-RADS categories for US images of 374 biopsy-proved masses. Readers were offered guidelines and re-classified the masses. We assessed readers' abilities to achieve ACR benchmarks BI-RADS categories pre- and post-guidelines. RESULTS: PPVs increased with BI-RADS category. The PPVs pre- and post-guidelines were 6.0% and 4.4% for category 3, 27.3% and 30.5% for category 4a, 49.9% and 51.5% for category 4b, 69.0% and 67.4% for category 4c, and 79.3% and 80.1% for category 5. Readers achieved the PPV benchmark for category 4c, but not for categories 3, 4a, 4b and 5, with no significant improvement after guidelines. Regular BI-RADS 4 subcategory users missed benchmarks by less than non-regular users. CONCLUSION: Pre- and post-guidelines, readers' PPVs increased with BI-RADS categories, ACR PPV benchmarks were achieved in category 4c, missed in other categories, especially in the critical 4a subcategory, where the PPV was too high. BI-RADS 4 subcategory users performed better than non-users. KEY POINTS: • Readers failed to achieve benchmarks for BI-RADS 4 subcategories, especially 4a. • USA and Brazilian readers performed similarly in ACR BI-RADS 4 subcategorization. • Proposed guidelines did not improve overall, USA or Brazilian reader performance. • Regularly BI-RADS 4 subcategory users performed better than did non-users. • US features distinguished between benign and malignant, not BI-RADS 4 subcategories.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Breast neoplasms; Breast ultrasonography; Diagnostic, imaging; Tumours, breast
Authors: Wendie A Berg; David O Cosgrove; Caroline J Doré; Fritz K W Schäfer; William E Svensson; Regina J Hooley; Ralf Ohlinger; Ellen B Mendelson; Catherine Balu-Maestro; Martina Locatelli; Christophe Tourasse; Barbara C Cavanaugh; Valérie Juhan; A Thomas Stavros; Anne Tardivon; Joel Gay; Jean-Pierre Henry; Claude Cohen-Bacrie Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elizabeth Lazarus; Martha B Mainiero; Barbara Schepps; Susan L Koelliker; Linda S Livingston Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Flemming Forsberg; Catherine W Piccoli; Daniel A Merton; Juan J Palazzo; Anne L Hall Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08-09 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Alexander Ciritsis; Cristina Rossi; Matthias Eberhard; Magda Marcon; Anton S Becker; Andreas Boss Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Renato de Oliveira Pereira; Larissa Almondes da Luz; Diego Cipriano Chagas; Jefferson Rodrigues Amorim; Elmo de Jesus Nery-Júnior; Araci Castelo Branco Rodrigues Alves; Flávio Teixeira de Abreu-Neto; Maria da Conceição Barros Oliveira; Danylo Rafhael Costa Silva; José Maria Soares-Júnior; Benedito Borges da Silva Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Ji Soo Choi; Boo Kyung Han; Eun Sook Ko; Jung Min Bae; Eun Young Ko; So Hee Song; Mi Ri Kwon; Jung Hee Shin; Soo Yeon Hahn Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.500