Interpretation of positron emission mammography and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: Performance and observer reproducibility

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 196, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 971-981

  Narayanan, Deepa ^a,b   Madsen, Kathleen S ^c   Kalinyak, Judith E ^a   Berg, Wendie A ^d,e  

^a Naviscan Inc   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c Certus International Inc   (United States)

^d American College of Radiology Imaging Network   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast; Breast MRI; MRI; Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFILTRATING LOBULAR CARCINOMA; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; NOMENCLATURE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON EMISSION MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; TUMOR VOLUME; VALIDATION STUDY; WORK EXPERIENCE; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EDUCATION; IN SERVICE TRAINING; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; SCINTISCANNING;

DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F18; HUMANS; INSERVICE TRAINING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 79957823566     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5081     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al. Highresolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006; 12:309-323
2. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology 2011; 258:59-72
3. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Coady AM, Turnbull LW, Horsman A. Observer variability in the interpretation of contrast enhanced MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol 1996; 69:1009-1016 (Pubitemid 26388605)
4. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. BI-RADS: mammography, 4th ed. In: D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS - breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
5. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, et al. BI-RADS: ultrasound, 1st ed. In: D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, ACR BI-RADS - breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
6. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kuhl CK, et al. BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging, 1st ed. In: D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, ACR BI-RADS - breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
7. Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mammography: feature analysis and rates of malignancy. AJR 2011; 196:956-970
8. Berg WA, Mendelson EB, Merritt CRB, Blume J, Schleinitz M. ACRIN 6666: screening breast ultrasound in high-risk women. acrin.org/Portals/0/Protocols/ 6666/Protocol-ACRIN%206666%20Admin%20Update%2011.30.07.pdf. Published November 9, 2007. Updated November 30, 2007
9. Eng J. ROC analysis: web-based calculator for ROC curves. www.rad.jhmi.edu/jeng/javarad/roc/JROCFITi.html. Updated September 11, 2007
10. Fleiss J. Measuring the nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971; 76:378-382
11. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174 (Pubitemid 8054849)
12. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13:889-895 (Pubitemid 32479947)
13. Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ, et al. Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. AJR 2002; 179:171-178 (Pubitemid 34694831)
14. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Futterer JJ, Boetes C, van Die LE, Jager G, Barentsz JO. Variability in the description of morphologic and contrast enhancement characteristics of breast lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2005; 40:355-362 (Pubitemid 40734564)
15. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: interand intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR 2000; 174:1769-1777
16. Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Saini MH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. AJR 2009; 193:861-867
17. Eby PR, Demartini WB, Peacock S, Rosen EL, Lauro B, Lehman CD. Cancer yield of probably benign breast MR examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26:950-955 (Pubitemid 47548155)
18. Weinstein SP, Hanna LG, Gatsonis C, Schnall MD, Rosen MA, Lehman CD. Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast- enhanced breast MR imaging: findings from ACRIN 6667. Radiology 2010; 255:731-737
19. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224:861-869 (Pubitemid 34919825)
20. Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:358-367 (Pubitemid 40425954)
21. Kuhl CK, Klaschik S, Mielcarek P, Gieseke J, Wardelmann E, Schild HH. Do T2-weighted pulse sequences help with the differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions in dynamic breast MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 9:187-196
22. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999; 211:101-110
23. Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, et al. The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations. Radiology 2008; 249:47-53
24. Rutter CM, Taplin S. Assessing mammographers' accuracy: a comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53:443-450 (Pubitemid 30254339)
25. Wu TH, Huang YH, Lee JJ, et al. Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:38-43 (Pubitemid 38133539)
26. Lu X, Lu W, Kalinyak JE. Radiation dose reduction for personalized breast PET imaging. Salt Lake City, UT: Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2010:358