» Articles » PMID: 22993385

Inter- and Intraradiologist Variability in the BI-RADS Assessment and Breast Density Categories for Screening Mammograms

Overview
Journal Br J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2012 Sep 21
PMID 22993385
Citations 58
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate reader variability in screening mammograms according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment and breast density categories.

Methods: A stratified random sample of 100 mammograms was selected from a population-based breast cancer screening programme in Barcelona, Spain: 13 histopathologically confirmed breast cancers and 51 with true-negative and 36 with false-positive results. 21 expert radiologists from radiological units of breast cancer screening programmes in Catalonia, Spain, reviewed the mammography images twice within a 6-month interval. The readers described each mammography using BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories. Inter- and intraradiologist agreement was assessed using percentage of concordance and the kappa (κ) statistic.

Results: Fair interobserver agreement was observed for the BI-RADS assessment [κ=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.38]. When the categories were collapsed in terms of whether additional evaluation was required (Categories III, 0, IV, V) or not (I and II), moderate agreement was found (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.52-0.54). Intra-observer agreement for BI-RADS assessment was moderate using all categories (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.50-0.55) and substantial on recall (κ=0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.70). Regarding breast density, inter- and intraradiologist agreement was substantial (κ=0.73, 95% CI 0.72-0.74 and κ=0.69, 95% CI 0.68-0.70, respectively).

Conclusion: We observed a substantial intra-observer agreement in the BI-RADS assessment but only moderate interobserver agreement. Both inter- and intra-observer agreement in mammographic interpretation of breast density was substantial. Advances in knowledge Educational efforts should be made to decrease radiologists' variability in BI-RADS assessment interpretation in population-based breast screening programmes.

Citing Articles

Exploring MRI and Mammography Lesion Features for Breast Cancer Detection in PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome.

Hoxhaj A, Milants A, Techanithisawat P, Bult P, Hoogerbrugge N, Mann R Cancers (Basel). 2025; 17(5).

PMID: 40075703 PMC: 11899549. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17050856.


Machine Learning-Based Approaches for Breast Density Estimation from Mammograms: A Comprehensive Review.

Alhusari K, Dhou S J Imaging. 2025; 11(2).

PMID: 39997539 PMC: 11856162. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging11020038.


An open codebase for enhancing transparency in deep learning-based breast cancer diagnosis utilizing CBIS-DDSM data.

Liao L, Aagaard E Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):27318.

PMID: 39516557 PMC: 11549440. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-78648-0.


Inter-reader agreement of the BI-RADS CEM lexicon.

Zarcaro C, Santonocito A, Zeitouni L, Ferrara F, Kapetas P, Milos R Eur Radiol. 2024; .

PMID: 39505735 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11176-7.


Automated Breast Density Assessment for Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Jiang S, Bennett D, Chen S, Toriola A, Colditz G Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2024; 18(1):23-29.

PMID: 39450526 PMC: 11701431. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-24-0338.


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.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center M, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D . Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(2):69-90. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20107. View

4.
Orel S, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan D . BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology. 1999; 211(3):845-50. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn31845. View

5.
Dinnes J, Moss S, Melia J, Blanks R, Song F, Kleijnen J . Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. Breast. 2004; 10(6):455-63. DOI: 10.1054/brst.2001.0350. View