Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon for breast MRI: Interobserver variability in the description and assignment of BI-RADS category

被引:31
|
作者
El Khoury, Mona [1 ]
Lalonde, Lucie [1 ]
David, Julie [1 ]
Labelle, Maude [1 ]
Mesurolle, Benoit [2 ]
Trop, Isabelle [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Montreal, Ctr Hosp, Breast Ctr, Dept Radiol, Montreal, PQ H2W 1T8, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, Ctr Hosp, Cedar Breast Ctr, Dept Radiol, Montreal, PQ H3A 1A1, Canada
关键词
Breast cancer; MRI; BI-RADS lexicon; OBSERVER VARIABILITY; INTRAOBSERVER VARIABILITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; AGREEMENT; MASSES; US;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.003
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate interobserver variability between breast radiologists when describing abnormal enhancement on breast MR examinations and assigning a BI-RADS category using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) terminology. Materials and methods: Five breast radiologists blinded to patients' medical history and pathologic results retrospectively and independently reviewed 257 abnormal areas of enhancement on breast MRI performed in 173 women. Each radiologist described the focal enhancement using BI-RADS terminology and assigned a final BI-RADS category. Krippendorff's alpha coefficient of agreement was used to asses interobserver variability. Results: All radiologists agreed on the morphology of enhancement in 1831257 (71%) lesions, yielding a substantial agreement (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.71). Moderate agreement was obtained for mass descriptors - shape, margins and internal enhancement - (alpha = 0.55, 0.51 and 0.45 respectively) and NME (non-mass enhancement) descriptors - distribution and internal enhancement - (alpha = 0.54 and 0.43). Overall substantial agreement was obtained for BI-RADS category assignment (alpha = 0.71). It was however only moderate (alpha = 0.38) for NME compared to mass (alpha = 0.80). Conclusion: Our study shows good agreement in describing mass and NME on a breast MR examination but a better agreement in predicting malignancy for mass than NME. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:71 / 76
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability in the BI-RADS ultrasound system
    Santana Montesdeoca, J. M.
    Gomez Arnaiza, A.
    Fuentes Pavon, R.
    Aleman Floresa, P.
    Liminana Canal, J. M.
    Jorrin Morenoa, A.
    RADIOLOGIA, 2009, 51 (05): : 477 - 486
  • [32] Benign (BI-RADS 2) lesions in breast MRI
    Spick, C.
    Szolar, D. H. M.
    Tillich, M.
    Reittner, P.
    Preidler, K. W.
    Baltzer, P. A.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2015, 70 (04) : 395 - 399
  • [33] BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: Interobserver variability and positive predictive value
    Lazarus, E
    Mainiero, MB
    Schepps, B
    Koelliker, SL
    Livingston, LS
    RADIOLOGY, 2006, 239 (02) : 385 - 391
  • [34] Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation
    Gard, Charlotte C.
    Bowles, Erin J. Aiello
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Taplin, Stephen H.
    Rutter, Carolyn M.
    BREAST JOURNAL, 2015, 21 (05): : 481 - 489
  • [35] Utility of BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions for Screening Breast MRI
    Strigel, Roberta M.
    Burnside, Elizabeth S.
    Elezaby, Mai
    Fowler, Amy M.
    Kelcz, Frederick
    Salkowski, Lonie R.
    DeMartini, Wendy B.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2017, 208 (06) : 1392 - 1399
  • [36] The value of breast MRI for BI-RADS category 4B mammographic microcalcification: based on the 5th edition of BI-RADS
    Eun, N. L.
    Son, E. J.
    Gweon, H. M.
    Youk, J. H.
    Kim, J-A
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 73 (08) : 750 - 755
  • [37] Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions
    Nicholson, Brandi T.
    LoRusso, Alexander P.
    Smolkin, Mark
    Bovbjerg, Viktor E.
    Petroni, Gina R.
    Harvey, Jennifer A.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2006, 13 (09) : 1143 - 1149
  • [38] Clinical impact of BI-RADS classification in Taiwanese breast cancer patients: BI-RADS 5 versus BI-RADS 0-4
    Kuo, Yao-Lung
    Cheng, Lili
    Chang, Tsai-Wang
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2012, 81 (07) : 1504 - 1507
  • [39] Consensus Meeting of Breast Imaging: BI-RADS® and Beyond
    Mueller-Schimpfle, Markus
    Bader, Werner
    Baltzer, Pascal
    Bernathova, Maria
    Fuchsjaeger, Michael
    Golatta, Michael
    Helbich, Thomas H.
    Hellerhoff, Karin
    Heywang-Koebrunner, Sylvia H.
    Kurtz, Claudia
    Mundinger, Alexander
    Siegmann-Luz, Katja C.
    Skaane, Per
    Solbach, Chistine
    Weigel, Stefanie
    BREAST CARE, 2019, 14 (05) : 308 - 314
  • [40] When classifying a BI-RADS category 3 lesion in breast MR imaging?
    Chapellier, Claire
    Marcotte-Bloch, Cecile
    Marcy, Pierre-Yves
    Benzaken, Thomas
    Balu-Maestro, Catherine
    IMAGERIE DE LA FEMME, 2010, 20 (02) : 74 - 80