Training the ACRIN 6666 investigators and effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS ultrasound feature analysis

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 199, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 224-235

  Berg, Wendie A ^a,b   Blume, Jeffrey D ^c,d   Cormack, Jean B ^c   Mendelson, Ellen B ^e  

^a American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

BI RADS; Breast ultrasound; Feedback; Observer agreement; Observer performance; Training

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BI-RADS; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSENSUS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

AREA UNDER CURVE; BIOPSY; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84863653585     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7324     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137:347-360 (Pubitemid 34977137)
2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783 (Pubitemid 41549889)
3. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1081-1087 (Pubitemid 30616482)
4. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299:2151-2163 (Pubitemid 351679706)
5. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012; 307:1394-1404
6. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000; 21:325-336
7. Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, et al. Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med (Torino) 2006; 111:440-448
8. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR 2003; 181:177-182 (Pubitemid 36741481)
9. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995; 76:626-630
10. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001; 221:641-649 (Pubitemid 33101754)
11. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:165-175
12. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR 2003; 180:1675-1679 (Pubitemid 36687107)
13. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004; 42:845-851, vi (Pubitemid 39165067)
14. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:734-742
15. Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M, et al. Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification - a pilot study. Rofo 2008; 180:804-808
16. Drukker K, Sennett CA, Giger ML. Automated method for improving system performance of computer-aided diagnosis in breast ultrasound. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009; 28:122-128
17. ACRIN Website. 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. Accessed February 8, 2012
18. Berg WA, D'Orsi CJ, Jackson VP, 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 2002; 224:871-880 (Pubitemid 34919826)
19. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Mammography, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
20. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
21. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Madsen EL. Lesion detection and characterization in a breast US phantom: results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Radiology 2006; 239:693-702 (Pubitemid 43830604)
22. Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York, NY: Wiley, 2002
23. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174 (Pubitemid 8054849)
24. Burnside ES, Ochsner JE, Fowler KJ, et al. Use of microcalcification descriptors in BI-RADS 4th edition to stratify risk of malignancy. Radiology 2007; 242:388-395 (Pubitemid 46146191)
25. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR 1998; 171:35-40 (Pubitemid 28308645)
26. Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA 1983; 250:777-781 (Pubitemid 13039569)
27. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002; 224:861-869 (Pubitemid 34919825)
28. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:1854-1863 (Pubitemid 351767192)
29. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1840-1850 (Pubitemid 40081321)
30. Haneuse S, Buist DS, Miglioretti DL, et al. Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice. Radiology 2012; 262:69-79
31. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Rosenberg R, et al. Physician workload in mammography. AJR 2008; 190:526-532 (Pubitemid 351196627)
32. American College of Radiology Website. Breast ultrasound accreditation program requirements. www.acr.org/accreditation/breast/breast-ultrasound-reqs. aspx. Revised November 22, 2011. Accessed February 14, 2011
33. The American Society of Breast Surgeons Website. Breast ultrasound certification. www.breastsurgeons.org/certification/breast-ultrasound- certification.php. Published 2008. Accessed February 14, 2011
34. International Breast Ultrasound School Website. Madjar H, Rickard M, Jellins J, Otto R, eds. IBUS guidelines for the ultrasonic examination of the breast. www.ibus.org/guidelines.html. Published May 24, 1998. Accessed February 14, 2011
35. Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, Zhang Z. Cystic breast lesions and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48:931-987
36. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006; 241:355-365 (Pubitemid 44632880)
37. Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, et al. Interexamination variation of whole breast ultrasound. Br J Radiol 2003; 76:328-331 (Pubitemid 36826741)
38. Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Wells CA. Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol 2000; 55:40-44 (Pubitemid 30255698)
39. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR 2005; 184:1260-1265 (Pubitemid 43821910)
40. Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology 2007; 245:401-410 (Pubitemid 47612520)
41. Schaefer FK, Heer I, Schaefer PJ, et al. Breast ultrasound elastography: results of 193 breast lesions in a prospective study with histopathologic correlation. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77:450-456
42. Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Weber S, et al. Multicenter study of ultrasound real-time tissue elastography in 779 cases for the assessment of breast lesions: improved diagnostic performance by combining the BI-RADS(R)-US classification system with sonoelastography. Ultraschall Med 2010; 31:484-491
43. Cho N, Jang M, Lyou CY, Park JS, Choi HY, Moon WK. Distinguishing benign from malignant masses at breast US: combined US elastography and color Doppler US - influence on radiologist accuracy. Radiology 2012; 262:80-90
44. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 Multinational Study of 939 masses. Radiology 2012; 262:435-449
45. Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65:293-298 (Pubitemid 351179958)
46. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006; 239:385-391
47. 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; 196:123-134
48. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR 1999; 172:1621-1625 (Pubitemid 29242350)
49. Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology 1989; 170:411-415 (Pubitemid 19035664)
50. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989; 172:235-241 (Pubitemid 19192515)
51. Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, Noh DY, Park IA. US of mammographically detected clustered micro-calcifications. Radiology 2000; 217:849-854
52. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR 2003; 180:941-948 (Pubitemid 36363029)
53. 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