» Articles » PMID: 22619635

Observer Variability of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Lexicon for Mammography

Overview
Publisher Karger
Date 2012 May 24
PMID 22619635
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

AIM: We aimed to determine the inter- and intra-observer variabilities between breast radiologists and a general radiologist in categorizing mammographic lesions using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), and to evaluate the effects of the histopathologic results on the variability. METHODS: Mammograms from 142 women who underwent biopsy were evaluated. 3 breast radiologists (2 with >10 years experience and 1 with 1 year experience) and 1 general radiologist retrospectively reviewed mammograms twice within an 8-week interval. Inter- and intra-observer variabilities were assessed with Cohen's kappa statistic, and the positive predictive value for final assessments was calculated. RESULTS: The intra-observer variability for mass and calcification assessments was moderate to almost perfect (kappa values: 0.41-1) for breast imagers and was fair to substantial for the general radiologist (kappa values: 0.21-0.8). Inter-observer agreement between the breast imagers was higher than between the breast and general radiologists. There was no apparent difference in agreement between observers for malignant and benign subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in intra- and inter-observer agreement between the breast imagers and the general radiologist affirm the utility of the BI-RADS lexicon. The histopathologic results of the lesions do not affect the agreement. BI-RADS is a simple and adequate tool for assessing mammograms, even after only 1 year of training.

Citing Articles

Reliability of radiologists' first impression when interpreting a screening mammogram.

Gandomkar Z, Siviengphanom S, Suleiman M, Wong D, Reed W, Ekpo E PLoS One. 2023; 18(4):e0284605.

PMID: 37098013 PMC: 10128970. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284605.


Incidental Breast Lesions Identified by (18)F-FDG PET/CT: Which Clinical Variables Differentiate between Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions?.

Shin K, Kim H, Jung S, Lim H, Lee S, Cho S J Breast Cancer. 2015; 18(1):73-9.

PMID: 25834614 PMC: 4381126. DOI: 10.4048/jbc.2015.18.1.73.

References
1.
Ooms E, Zonderland H, Eijkemans M, Kriege M, Mahdavian Delavary B, Burger C . Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast. 2007; 16(6):568-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.04.007. View

2.
Berg W, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton M . Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174(6):1769-77. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.174.6.1741769. View

3.
Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F . Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast. 2005; 14(4):269-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2004.12.004. View

4.
Sumru Cosar Z, Cetin M, Tepe T, Cetin R, Zarali A . Concordance of mammographic classifications of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis: Utility of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (fourth edition). Clin Imaging. 2005; 29(6):389-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2005.05.002. View

5.
Sickles E, Wolverton D, Dee K . Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002; 224(3):861-9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2243011482. View