Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 76, Issue 905, 2003, Pages 328-331

  Bosch, A M ^a   Kessels, A G H ^a   Beets, G L ^a   Vranken, K L C G ^a   Borstlap, A C ^b   Meyenfeldt, M F ^a   Van Engelshoven, J M A ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b St Maartens Gasthuis ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PROBABILITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT INDICATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 0038354771     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/17252624     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: Use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123-34.
2. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: Detection with screening US - Diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207:191-9.
3. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: Clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:921-7.
4. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;174:1769-77.
5. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL, Chan NH. Solid breast lesions: Diagnosis with US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Radiology 1993;189:573-80.
6. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: Observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;172:1621-5.
7. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889-94.
8. Skaane P, Olsen JB, Sager EM, Abdelnoor M, Berger A, Kullmann G, et al. Variability in the interpretation of ultrasonography in patients with palpable noncalcified breast tumors. Acta Radiol 1999;40:169-75.
9. Shimamoto K, Kawaki A, Ikede M, Satake H, Naganawa S, Tadokoro M, et al. Interobserver agreement in sonographic diagnosis of breast tumors. Eur J Ultrasound 1998;8:25-31.
10. Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A. Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging. Comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses. Acta Radiol 1997;38:497-502.
11. Zonderland HM, Hermans J, Holscher HC, Schipper J, Obermann WR. Additional value of US to mammography: Profit and loss. Eur Radiol 1994;4:511-6.
12. American-College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (Illustrated BI-RADS). American College of Radiology. 1998, 179-81.
13. Mendelson EB, Berg WA, Merritt CR. Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. Semin Roentgenol 2001;36:217-25.
14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
15. Svanholm H, Starklint H, Gundersen HJ, Fabricius J, Barlebo H, Olsen S. Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS 1989;97:689-98.
16. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall. 1993;436.
17. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983;148:839-43.