Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Radiol Med. 2012 Jun;117(4):519-28. doi: 10.1007/s11547-011-0777-3. Epub 2012 Jan 7.

Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification.

Author information

  • 1U.O. Senologia Clinica e Screening Mammografico, Dipartimento di Radiodiagnostica, APSS Trento I, Viale Verona Centro per i Servizi Sanitari, Palazzina C, Piano Terrazza, 38100, Trento, Italy. Daniela.Bernardi@apss.tn.it

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The authors sought to assess interobserver agreement in classifying mammography density according to quantitative Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Six expert mammography readers were tested on a set of 100 mammograms. Interobserver agreement was determined according to the kappa statistic, adjusting for chance agreement, on a four-category (D1 vs. D2 vs. D3 vs. D4) or two-category (D1-2 vs. D3-4) basis. Agreement with a panel of 12 readers who had been tested on the same set in a previous study was also assessed.

RESULTS:

The six readers showed good agreement when compared in pairs [agreement on a four-category basis was substantial (kappa=0.60-0.80) for 13 pairs and almost perfect (kappa>0.80) for two pairs); agreement on a two-category basis was substantial for 12 pairs and almost perfect for three pairs) or compared with the panel (on a four-category basis, agreement was substantial for five of six readers and almost perfect for one; on a two-category basis, agreement was substantial for all readers).

CONCLUSIONS:

In agreement with previous studies, visual classification of mammography density according to BI-RADS quantitative criteria was highly reproducible among readers; nevertheless, attribution to the "dense breast" (BI-RADS D3-4) category, which might be adopted as a determinant of different screening protocols (such as adjunct ultrasonography or yearly interval) varied among readers (range 6-15%). Controlled studies should be performed comparing visual with computer-density category attribution, the latter possibly being a better alternative due to its absolute reproducibility.

PMID:
22228132
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk