Guillaume Oldrini1, Imad Derraz2, Julia Salleron3, Frédéric Marchal4, Philippe Henrot2. 1. Unit of Imaging, Lorraine Institute of Oncology, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; CRAN, University of Lorraine, CNRS, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 2. Unit of Imaging, Lorraine Institute of Oncology, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 3. Department of Cellule Data Biostatistique, Lorraine Institute of Oncology, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 4. Unit of Surgery, Lorraine Institute of Oncology, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France; CRAN, University of Lorraine, CNRS, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and interpretation time of an abbreviated protocol relative to the complete protocol of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the use of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Between-reader and between-protocol variability for BI-RADS classification and influence of reader expertise on diagnostic accuracies were also evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective reader study in 90 women who underwent breast MRI: 30 benign examinations (graded as American College of Radiology [ACR] 1 or 2), 30 examinations graded as ACR 3 and 30 examinations requiring a histologic proof (graded as ACR 4 or 5). Two radiologists independently reviewed the protocols. The reference standard was 24 months of imaging follow-up (66.6%, n=60), percutaneous biopsy at the 12th month imaging follow-up (5.5%, n=5), and breast surgery (27.9%, n=25). Analysis was done on a per-breast basis. There were 26 cancers in 168 breasts (15.1%) RESULTS: Interpretation time was higher for the complete protocol (mean difference: 84 s, 95% CI [67;101] for senior and 83 s, 95% CI [70;95] for junior reader; P < 0.001). The reliability of BI-RADS classification between both protocols was very good with intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89 for junior reader and 0.98 for senior reader; the inter-reader reliability was 0.94 and 0.90 for the complete and abbreviated protocols, respectively. For senior reader, the abbreviated and complete protocols yielded 95.1% and 94.4% specificity and 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Our data provide corroborating evidence that abbreviated protocols decrease interpretation time without compromising sensitivity or specificity. There was a high level of concordance between the abbreviated and complete protocols and between the two readers.
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and interpretation time of an abbreviated protocol relative to the complete protocol of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the use of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Between-reader and between-protocol variability for BI-RADS classification and influence of reader expertise on diagnostic accuracies were also evaluated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective reader study in 90 women who underwent breast MRI: 30 benign examinations (graded as American College of Radiology [ACR] 1 or 2), 30 examinations graded as ACR 3 and 30 examinations requiring a histologic proof (graded as ACR 4 or 5). Two radiologists independently reviewed the protocols. The reference standard was 24 months of imaging follow-up (66.6%, n=60), percutaneous biopsy at the 12th month imaging follow-up (5.5%, n=5), and breast surgery (27.9%, n=25). Analysis was done on a per-breast basis. There were 26 cancers in 168 breasts (15.1%) RESULTS: Interpretation time was higher for the complete protocol (mean difference: 84 s, 95% CI [67;101] for senior and 83 s, 95% CI [70;95] for junior reader; P < 0.001). The reliability of BI-RADS classification between both protocols was very good with intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89 for junior reader and 0.98 for senior reader; the inter-reader reliability was 0.94 and 0.90 for the complete and abbreviated protocols, respectively. For senior reader, the abbreviated and complete protocols yielded 95.1% and 94.4% specificity and 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Our data provide corroborating evidence that abbreviated protocols decrease interpretation time without compromising sensitivity or specificity. There was a high level of concordance between the abbreviated and complete protocols and between the two readers.
Authors: Akshay S Garg; Jocelyn A Rapelyea; Lauren R Rechtman; Jessica Torrente; Rebecca B Bittner; Caitrín M Coffey; Rachel F Brem Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marco Moschetta; Michele Telegrafo; Leonarda Rella; Amato Antonio Stabile Ianora; Giuseppe Angelelli Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: K Pinker-Domenig; W Bogner; S Gruber; H Bickel; S Duffy; M Schernthaner; P Dubsky; U Pluschnig; M Rudas; S Trattnig; T H Helbich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Laura Heacock; Amy N Melsaether; Samantha L Heller; Yiming Gao; Kristine M Pysarenko; James S Babb; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Ritse M Mann; Roel D Mus; Jan van Zelst; Christian Geppert; Nico Karssemeijer; Bram Platel Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Doris Leithner; Linda Moy; Elizabeth A Morris; Maria A Marino; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 4.813
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