Inter- and intraradiologist variability in the BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories for screening mammograms

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 85, Issue 1019, 2012, Pages 1465-1470

  Redondo, A ^a   Comas, M ^a,b   Macia F ^a,b   Ferrer, F ^c   Murta Nascimento, C ^a,b   Maristany, M T ^c   Molins, E ^a   Sala, M ^a,b   Castells, X ^a,b  

^a HOSPITAL DEL MAR   (Spain)

^b CIBER EPIDEMIOLOGÍA Y SALUD PÚBLICA CIBERESP   (Spain)

^c Hospitals Del Mar Esperança   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; DENSITY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MENOPAUSE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; SPAIN;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMARY GLANDS, HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION;

EID: 84868031099     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/21256379     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:69-90.
2. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 10. Lyon, France: IARC; 2010. Available from: http://globocan. iarc.fr
3. Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen 2005;12:50-4. (Pubitemid 40445077)
4. Yankaskas BC, Klabunde CN, Ancelle-Park R, Renner G, Wang H, Fracheboud J, Pou G, et al. International Breast Cancer Screening Network. International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 2004;11:187-93. (Pubitemid 40006742)
5. Molins E, Macià F, Ferrer F, Maristany MT, Castells X. Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:91.
6. Dinnes J, Moss S, Melia J, Blanks R, Song F, Kleijnen J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. Breast 2001;10:455-63. (Pubitemid 33150359)
7. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADSH). 3rd edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998.
8. American College of Radiology. Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADSH). 3rd edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998.
9. 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. (Pubitemid 30346755)
10. Lehman C, Holt S, Peacock S, White E, Urban N. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:15-20. (Pubitemid 34694804)
11. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F, et al. Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra-and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories. Breast 2005;14:269-75. (Pubitemid 41110187)
12. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F, et al. Reader variability in reporting breast imaging according to BI-RADS assessment categories (the Florence experience). Breast 2006;15:44-51. (Pubitemid 43210548)
13. Ooms EA, Zonderland HM, Eijkemans MJ, Kriege M, Mahdavian Delavary B, Burger CW, et al. Mammography: interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 2007;16:568-76. (Pubitemid 350154446)
14. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, et al. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1801-9. (Pubitemid 28559892)
15. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measure of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 1973;33:613-19.
16. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211:845-50. (Pubitemid 29249488)
17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74. (Pubitemid 8054849)
18. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493-9. (Pubitemid 24356309)
19. 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;239:385-91.
20. Harvey SC, Geller B, Oppenheimer RG, Pinet M, Riddell L, Garra B. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1461-7. (Pubitemid 36504645)
21. Perry NM, Broeders M, de Wolf C. European guidelines for quality. Assurance in the mammography screening. Luxembourg: European Commission-Europe Against Cancer; 2002.
22. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1159-69.