Variability of Breast Density Classification Between US and UK Radiologists

被引:14
作者
Alomaim, Wijdan [1 ]
O'Leary, Desiree [2 ]
Ryan, John [1 ]
Rainford, Louise [1 ]
Evanoff, Michael [3 ]
Foley, Shane [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Coll Dublin, Sch Med, Radiog & Diagnost Imaging, Room A223,2nd Floor,Hlth Sci Bldg, Dublin 4, Ireland
[2] Keele Univ, Radiog, Keele, Staffs, England
[3] Amer Board Radiol, Tucson, AZ USA
关键词
Breast density; BI-RADS; intrarater variability; mammography; MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITY; INTRAOBSERVER VARIABILITY; 5TH EDITION; CANCER; LEGISLATION; CATEGORIES; AGREEMENT; RISK; REPRODUCIBILITY; RELIABILITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmir.2018.11.002
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To assess whether subjective breast density categorization remains the most useful way to categorize mammographic breast density and whether variations exist across geographic regions with differing national legislation. Methods: Breast radiologists from two countries (UK, USA) were voluntarily recruited to review sets of anonymized mammographic images (n = 180) and additional repeated images (n = 70), totaling 250 images, to subjectively rate breast density according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system (BI-RADS) categorization. Images were reviewed using standardized viewing conditions and Ziltron software. Inter-rater reliability was analyzed using the Kappa test. Results: The US radiologists (n = 25) judged fewer images as being "mostly fatty'' than UK radiologists (n = 24), leading a greater number of images classified in the higher BI-RADS categories, particularly in BI-RADS 3. Overall agreement for all data sets was k = 0.654 indicating substantial agreement between the two cohorts. When the data were split into BI-RADS categories, the level of agreement varied from fair to substantial. Conclusion: Variations in how radiologists from the USA and UK classify breast density was established, especially when the data were divided into breast density categories. This variation supports the need for a reliable breast density assessment method to enhance the individualized supplemental screening pathways for dense breasts. The use of two-scale categorization method demonstrated improved agreement. Advances in knowledge: Larger sample of radiologists from different breast density jurisdictions confirms international subjective variability in density categorization and improved agreement with the two-scale (low, high) categorization. With this variability, a standardized and automated breast density assessment shows to be timely. Advances in knowledge: Larger sample of radiologists from different breast density jurisdictions confirms international subjective variability in density categorization and improved agreement with the two-scale (low, high) categorization. With this variability, a standardized and automated breast density assessment shows to be timely.
引用
收藏
页码:53 / 61
页数:9
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]   Reliability of Automated Breast Density Measurements [J].
Alonzo-Proulx, Olivier ;
Mawdsley, Gordon E. ;
Patrie, James T. ;
Yaffe, Martin J. ;
Harvey, Jennifer A. .
RADIOLOGY, 2015, 275 (02) :366-376
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2013, ACR BIRADS ATLAS BRE
[3]   Breast imaging reporting and data system: Inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment [J].
Berg, WA ;
Campassi, C ;
Langenberg, P ;
Sexton, MJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2000, 174 (06) :1769-1777
[4]   Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening in Women With Dense Breasts Should Be Offered With Simultaneous Collection of Outcomes Data [J].
Berg, Wendie A. .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2016, 164 (04) :299-300
[5]   Detection of Breast Cancer With Addition of Annual Screening Ultrasound or a Single Screening MRI to Mammography in Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk [J].
Berg, Wendie A. ;
Zhang, Zheng ;
Lehrer, Daniel ;
Jong, Roberta A. ;
Pisano, Etta D. ;
Barr, Richard G. ;
Boehm-Velez, Marcela ;
Mahoney, Mary C. ;
Evans, W. Phil, III ;
Larsen, Linda H. ;
Morton, Marilyn J. ;
Mendelson, Ellen B. ;
Farria, Dione M. ;
Cormack, Jean B. ;
Marques, Helga S. ;
Adams, Amanda ;
Yeh, Nolin M. ;
Gabrielli, Glenna .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (13) :1394-1404
[6]  
Bovis K., 1998, P 4 INT WORKSH DIG M, P177, DOI 10.1.1.19.1806
[7]   Breast Density Legislation Fueling Controversy [J].
Brower, Vicki .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2013, 105 (08) :510-511
[8]   THE QUANTITATIVE-ANALYSIS OF MAMMOGRAPHIC DENSITIES [J].
BYNG, JW ;
BOYD, NF ;
FISHELL, E ;
JONG, RA ;
YAFFE, MJ .
PHYSICS IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY, 1994, 39 (10) :1629-1638
[9]  
Carney PA, 2003, ANN INTERN MED, V138, P168, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
[10]   Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories [J].
Ciatto, S ;
Houssami, N ;
Apruzzese, A ;
Bassetti, E ;
Brancato, B ;
Carozzi, F ;
Catarzi, S ;
Lamberini, MP ;
Marcelli, G ;
Pellizzoni, R ;
Pesce, B ;
Risso, G ;
Russo, F ;
Scorsolini, A .
BREAST, 2005, 14 (04) :269-275