A test of performance of breast MRI interpretation in a multicentre screening study

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 24, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 917-929

  Warren, Ruth ^a   Hayes, Carmel ^b   Pointon, Linda ^c   Hoff, Rebecca ^c   Gilbert, Fiona J ^d   Padhani, Anwar R ^e   Rubin, Caroline ^f   Kaplan, Glenda ^g   Raza, Kauza ^e   Wilkinson, Laura ^h   Hall Craggs, Margaret ⁱ   Kessar, Preminda ^j   Rankin, Sheila ^k   Dixon, Adrian K ^a   Walsh, James ^l   Turnbull, Lindsay ^m   Britton, Peter ^a   Sinnatamby, Ruchi ^a   Easton, Doug ⁿ   Thompson, Deborah ⁿ   Lakhani, Sunil R ^o   Leach, Martin O ^c   more..

^a ADDENBROOKE S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b SIEMENS AG   (Germany)

^c INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^e MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f SOUTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^g BARNET HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^h West of Scotland Breast Screening Service   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^j Princess Royal University Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^k GUY S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^l ROYAL INFIRMARY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^m HULL ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ CR UK Genetic Epidemiology Unit   (United Kingdom)

^o UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Breast MRI; Quality control; Reporting performance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; HUMAN; KINETICS; MORPHOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33746968091     PISSN: 0730725X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2006.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. The UK MRI Breast Screening Study Advisory Group, Brown J., Coulthard A., Dixon A., Dixon J., Easton D., et al. Protocol for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer. Breast J 9 (2000) 78-82
2. Leach M.O., Boggis C.R., Dixon A.K., Easton D.F., Eeles R.A., Evans D.G., et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365 9473 (2005) 1769-1778
3. Friedman D.P., Rosetti G.F., Flanders A.E., Piccoli C.W., Rao V.M., Mitchell D.G., et al. MR imaging: quality assessment method and ratings at 33 centers. Radiology 196 1 (1995) 219-226
4. Fischer U., Doler W., Luftner-Nagel S., and Grabbe E. A multipurpose phantom for quality assurance of contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 10 1 (2000) 162-166
5. Brookes J.A., Redpath T.W., Gilbert F.J., Murray A.D., and Staff R.T. Accuracy of T1 measurement in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI using two- and three-dimensional variable flip angle fast low-angle shot. J Magn Reson Imaging 9 2 (1999) 163-171
6. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging. Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (2003), American College of Radiology, Reston
7. Brown J., Buckley D., Coulthard A., Dixon A.K., Dixon J.M., Easton D.F., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer: imaging and analysis protocol for the UK multicentre study. Magn Reson Imaging 18 7 (2000) 765-776
8. Warren R., Pointon L., Thompson D., Hoff R.J., Gilbert F., Padhani A., et al. Reading protocol for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis. Radiology 236 3 (2005) 779-788
9. Huber P. The behaviour of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability; 1967 (1967), University of California Press, Berkeley (Calif) 221-223
10. Landis J.R., and Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 1 (1977) 159-174
11. DeLong E.R., DeLong D.M., and Clarke-Pearson D.L. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44 3 (1988) 837-845
12. Esserman L., Cowley H., Eberle C., Kirkpatrick A., Chang S., Berbaum K., et al. Improving accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 94 (2002) 321-323
13. Warren R., Thompson D., Pointon L., Hoff R.J., Gilbert F., Padhani A., et al. Evaluation of a prospective scoring system designed for a multicentre breast MRI screening study. Radiology (2005) [in press]
14. Berg W.A., D'Orsi C.J., Jackson V.P., Bassett L.W., Beam C.A., Lewis R.S., et al. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?. Radiology 224 3 (2002) 871-880
15. Berg W.A., Campassi C., Langenberg P., and Sexton M.J. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174 6 (2000) 1769-1777
16. Baker J.A., Kornguth P.J., Soo M.S., Walsh R., and Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172 6 (1999) 1621-1625
17. Kim S.J., Morris E.A., Liberman L., Ballon D.J., La Trenta L.R., Hadar O., et al. Observer variability and applicability of BI-RADS terminology for breast MR imaging: invasive carcinomas as focal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177 3 (2001) 551-557
18. Ikeda D.M., Hylton N.M., Kinkel K., Hochman M.G., Kuhl C.K., Kaiser W.A., et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 13 6 (2001) 889-895
19. Chen W., Giger M.L., Lan L., and Bick U. Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancement-variance dynamics. Med Phys 31 5 (2004) 1076-1782