Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the american college of radiology breast imaging reporting and data system

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 90, Issue 23, 1998, Pages 1801-1809

  Kerlikowske, Karla ^a,b   Grady, Deborah ^a   Barclay, John ^a   Frankel, Steven D ^a   Ominsky, Steven H ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^a   Ernster, Virginia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST;

EID: 0032477348     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/90.23.1801     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331: 1493-9.
2. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:773-8.
3. Ciccone G, Vineis P, Frigerio A, Segnan N. Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study. Eur J Cancer 1992;28A:1054-8.
4. Vineis P, Sinistrero G, Temporelli A, Azzoni L, Bigo A, Burke P, et al. Inter-observer variability in the interpretation of mammograms. Tumori 1988;74:275-9.
5. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by U.S. radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996;156:209-13.
6. Feldman J, Smith RA, Giusti R, DeBuono B, Fulton JP, Scott HD. Peer review of mammography interpretations in a breast cancer screening program. Am J Public Health 1995;85:837-9.
7. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 2nd ed. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 1995.
8. Sickles EA, Weber WN, Galvin HB, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA. Mammographic screening: how to operate successfully at low cost. Radiology 1986;160:95-7.
9. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993;270:2444-50.
10. Sickles EA. The use of computers in mammography screening. Radiol Clin North Am 1987;25:1015-30.
11. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 1990;175:323-7.
12. Monticciolo DL, Sickles EA. Computerized follow-up of abnormalities detected at mammography screening. Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:751-3.
13. Metz CE. ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21:720-33.
14. Seigel DG, Podgor MJ, Remaley NA. Acceptable values of kappa for comparison of two groups. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:571-8.
15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
16. Brennan P, Silman A. Statistical methods for assessing observer variability in clinical measures. BMJ 1992;304:1491-4.
17. Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1981. p. 218-22.
18. Simpson W, Neilson F, Kelly PJ. The Northern Region Breast Screening Radiology Audit Group. Descriptive terms for mammographic abnormalities: observer variation in application. Clin Radiol 1995;51:709-13.
19. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622-9.
20. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670-5.
21. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-8.
22. Jong R, Fishell E, Little L, Lockwood G, Boyd NF. Mammographic signs of potential relevance to breast cancer risk: the agreement of radiologists' classification. Eur J Cancer Prev 1996;5:281-6.
23. Conway BJ, McCrohan JL, Reuter FG, Suleiman OH. Mammography in the eighties. Radiology 1990;177:335-9.
24. Conway BJ, Suleiman OH, Reuter FG, Antonsen RG, Slayton RJ. National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988, and 1992. Radiology 1994;191:323-30.
25. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations. JAMA 1997;277:49-52.
26. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;191:214-44.
27. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 3rd ed. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 1998.